Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/eraoffraudsinmetOOIanaiala 


(_THE 

Era  of  Feauds 


IN  THE 


Methodist  Book  Concern 


AT  NEW  YORK 


BY 

JOHN  LANAHAN,  D.  D. 


1896 

Methodist  Book  Depository 

118  E.  Baltimoke  St. 

Baltimore,  Md. 


Copyright,  1896. 


PKESS   OF 

THB   FBIEDBHWALD    COMPANY, 

BALTIMOKK,    HD. 


DEDICATION. 

The  fathers  of  Methodism  by  whose  toils  and 
sacrifices  the  Book  Concern  was  founded,  adopted 
the  following,  which  has  remained  the  law  of  the 
Church  to  the  present : 

"the  profits  arising  from  the  Book  Con- 
cern, AFTER  A  SUFFICIENT  CAPITAL  TO  CARRY 
ON  THE  BUSINESS  IS  RETAINED,  SHALL.  BE  REGU- 
LARLY APPLIED  TO  THE  RELIEF  OF  TRAVELING, 
SUPERNUMERARY  AND  SUPERANNUATED  MINISTERS, 
THEIR   WIVES,    WIDOWS   AND   CHILDREN." 

I  dedicate  this  narrative  to  the  above  worthy 
servants  of  the  Church,  who  were  long  deprived 
of  what  belonged  to  them,  by  mismanagement 
and  frauds. 


"I  HEARD  THE  DEFAMING  OF  MANY, 
FEAR  ON  EVERY  SIDE.  REPORT,  SAY 
THEY,  AND  WE  WILL  REPORT  IT.  ALL 
MY  FAMILIARS  WATCHED  FOR  MY  HALTING, 
SAYING,  PERADVENTURE  HE  WILL  BE  EN- 
TICED, AND  WE  SHALL  PREVAIL  AGAINST 
HIM,  AND  WE  SHALL  TAKE  OUR  REVENGE 
ON  HIM."— JEREMIAH,    CHAP.  20,  10. 


PREFACE. 


No  one  can  regret  an  era  of  fraud  in  the 
Methodist  Book  Concern  at  New  York,  that  has 
led  to  the  writing  o.f  these  pages,  more  than  I 
do,  and  in  the  writing  of  them  I  trust  I  am 
perfectly  free  from  the  spirit  of  vindictiveness ; 
indeed  if  I  thought  that  was  the  spirit  prompt- 
ing me,  I  would  consign  the  manuscript  to  the 
flames  rather  than  to  the  publishers. 

But  for  more  than  thirty  years  I  had  stood 
in  the  pulpit  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
preaching  the  Gospel  of  Christ  and  telling  men 
how  to  live — I  had  been  a  man  of  strictly  one 
work — the  work  assigned  me  by  the  Church, 
and  wherever  and  whatever  that  work  has  been 
I  did  it  to  the  extent  of  my  ability,  feeling  that 
it  was  due  to  my  profession  as  a  minister  of 
Christ  and  to  the  Church  to  which,  under  Cod, 
I  was  indebted  for  all  I  am  and  all  I  hope  for 
in  time  and  in  eternity.  I  do  not  know  that 
ever  during  those  thirty-odd  years  a  w^ord  was 
breathed  by  any  one  against  my  moral  and 
Christian  character. 

There  came  a  time,  however,  when  I  was 
assailed  as  a  slanderer  of  honest  people.    I  was 


Viii  PEBFACE. 

twice  suspended  from  my  official  position  in  the 
Cliurch  and  tlirown  into  jail  on  the  charge  of 
maligning  Christian  gentlemen.  Four,  at  least, 
of  the  official  papers  of  the  Church  with  a  circu- 
lation of  nearly  a  hundred  thousand,  almost 
every  week  for  two  years  held  me  up  to  pub- 
lic reproach,  and  the  Church  at  large  to  this 
day  does  not  know  whether  there  was  not  some 
ground  for  the  charges  instituted  against  me 
and  the  abuse  heaped  upon  me.  Ever  since  im- 
putations have  been  cast  upon  me,  in  some  in- 
stances by  high  officials,  tending  to  destroy  con- 
fidence in  my  integrity,  of  which  the  following 
by  the  late  Kev.  W.  L.  Harris,  in  a  biographical 
sketch  of  my  successor  in  the  Agency,  Rev.  R. 
Nelson,  in  the  Quarterly  Review,  of  October, 
1879,  is  a  specimen: 

He  succeeded  to  his  agency  in  troublous  times.  The 
Book  Concern  had  just  passed  through  a  most  trying 
ordeal.  Its  former  management  had  been  fearfully  assailed 
and  maligned,  not  only  in  private  circles,  both  within  and 
without  the  Church,  and  in  the  public  prints  throughout 
the  country  and  in  foreign  lands,  thus  begetting  great 
hesitancy  and  distrust  everywhere  in  relation  to  its  affairs. 
Although  the  results  of  the  most  careful  and  exhaustive 
scrutiny  that  could  be  made  by  competent  and  skilled 
accountants  signally  failed  to  justify  or  even  excuse  the 
slightest  suspicion  of  the  honesty  of  its  Agents,  or  the 
solvency  of  the  institution,  yet  the  vigorous  and  persistent 
assaults  upon  both,  strongly  tended  to  overthrow  its  credit 
and  destroy  its  usefulness. 

It  is  no  relief  to  me  that  the  malice  and  hos- 
tility alleged  against  the  Book  Concern  are,  in 


PREFACE.  iX 

tlie  above  statement,  so  to  say,  impersonal,  or 
that  this  great  wrong  is  not  by  name  ascribed  to 
me;  for,  thougli  the  putting  of  the  charge  implies 
that  assailants  and  maligners  were  numerous, 
it  is  known  to  the  whole  M.  E.  Church,  and  to 
multitudes  beyond  its  pale,  that  I  alone  am 
held  responsible — a  responsibility  I  have  never 
sought  to  evade — for  the  charges  against  the 
management  of  the  Book  Concern,  as  I  found  it 
soon  after  I  entered  upon  my  duties  as  one  of 
the  Agents,  in  obedience  to  the  appointment  of 
the  General  Conference  of  1868.  Though  ap- 
parently general,  the  charge  points  in  one  direc- 
tion only.  The  head  and  front  of  that  offending 
was  myself.  The  arraignment  is,  therefore,  of 
me.  The  severe  condemnation  launched  against 
assailants  and  maligners,  will,  wherever  the 
paper  is  read,  fall  on  me  alone.  Thus  I  was 
publicly  accused,  no  less  really  than  if  by  name, 
of  a  heinous  crime,  and  that  by  one  of  the  offi- 
cials of  the  Church  to  which  I  belonged,  and,  in 
the  pages  of  that  one  of  its  periodicals  in  which 
its  Aveightiest  utterances  are  wont  to  have  ex- 
pression, and  what  is  most  unseemly,  interjected 
into  a  eulogy  of  the  dead. 

Eight  years  after  my  Agency  in  the  Book  Con- 
cern had  ended,  I  was  a  delegate  to  the  General 
Conference  at  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  On  an  occasion 
when  I  was  participating  in  the  business  before 
the  Conference,  a  visiting  clergyman  inquired 


X  PREFACE. 

of  my  friend,  Rev.  Dr.  K.  P.  Jervis,  who  was 
also  a  delegate,  for  my  name.  When  informed, 
he  exclaimed,  "Why,  no  persons  here  respect 
him,  do  they?"  In  a  pleasant  way.  Dr.  Jervis 
gave  me  the  particulars  the  same  day.  No 
doubt  the  stranger  supposed  he  had  good  rea- 
sons for  the  remark.  He  had,  perhaps,  gotten 
his  estimate  of  me  from  the  Christian  Advocate, 
and  the  report  of  the  Book  Committee.  I  have 
no  doubt  there  are  many  throughout  the  Church 
like-minded;  others  who  believe  there  were 
wrongs  in  the  Concern  that  needed  correction, 
are  of  the  opinion  that  the  correction  could  and 
should  have  been  made  by  the  Agents  without 
much  publicity  and  controversy.  Such  opinions 
are  entirely  natural  and  reasonable  in  minds 
that  know  little  or  nothing  about  the  facts.  I 
am  entirely  willing  to  abide  the  judgment  of  all 
such  after  they  shall  have  examined  the  facts 
of  tliis  narrative,  which  is  but  a  meagre  state- 
ment of  the  whole  case. 

Only  at  the  last  General  Conference,  Dr.  C.  C. 
McCabe,  in  a  speech  on  the  floor  of  that  body, 
declared  that  "the  Church  never  lost  a  dollar 
by  one  of  its  Agents,"  which  could  be  interpreted 
in  no  other  way  than  as  confirmatory  of  the 
charges  under  which  I  was  misrepresented  by 
the  official  press,  suspended,  and  imprisoned. 

For  the  sake  of  my  Christian  name,  and  for 
the  sake  of  my  children  and  mj^  children's  chil- 


ntEFACE.  xi 

dreii,  ought  I  not,  before  death  shall  seal  my 
lips,  lift  this  cloud  that  has  hung  over  me  for 
more  than  twenty  years? 

But  the  reason  for  writing  these  pages  is  not 
merely  personal.  In  my  judgment  no  funds  are 
so  sacred  as  those  contributed  in  the  name  of 
Christian  charity,  contributed  in  some  instances 
by  poor  people  who  can  ill  afford  to  give  of 
their  substance.  We  believe  God  continually 
watches  over  all  such  gifts,  and  if  men  trifle 
with  them,  or  misappropriate  them,  they  do  so 
at  their  peril. 

I  trust  the  reader  will  discover  in  almost  every 
page  of  this  narrative  an  effort  to  show  that  a 
misuse  of  the  funds  of  the  Church  of  Christ  is 
attended  with  disastrous  consequences  to  those 
who  are  guilty;  that  they  shall  not  long  enjoy 
their  ill-gotten  gains,  and  that  sooner  or  later  all 
such  crimes  shall  be  published  as  upon  the 
house-top.  Of  such  wrong-doers,  and  of  those 
who  through  sympathy,  or  otherwise,  help  to 
cover  the  wrongs,  it  may  be  truly  said:  "Be 
sure  your  sin  will  find  you  out."  If  henceforth 
charitable  funds,  especially  in  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  are  not  guarded  Avith  greater 
care,  if  the  hand  of  the  thief  when  stretched  out 
to  make  unlawful  use  of  them  is  not  more  likely 
to  be  paralyzed,  then  one  of  the  principal  pur- 
poses the  author  of  this  narrative  has  had  in 
mind  when  writing  it,  will  fail  of  its  accom- 


XU  PREFACE. 

plisliment.  But  I  am  sure  tliat  those  who  are 
disposed  to  give  to  the  great  philanthropies  of 
our  Church  can  do  so  with  gTeater  confidence 
by  reason  of  these  exposures,  and  tliat  a  wiser 
and  more  faithful  distribution  of  what  is  given 
will  be  made  than  ever  before  in  the  history  of 
Methodism. 

It  is  proper  to  say,  that  when  the  broad,  em- 
phatic averment  was  made  at  the  last  General 
Conference,  that  the  Church  had  "never  lost  a 
dollar  by  one  of  its  Agents,"  I  determined  to 
challenge  it,  and  more  than  anything  else  it  has 
led  to  this  publication,  especially  as  the  speaker 
had  been  making  similar  and  much  more  sweep- 
ing declarations  during  preceding  years.  At  my 
request,  the  General  Conference  unanimously 
ordered  that  I  have  access  to  the  records  of 
the  Book  Committee.  Upon  application  to  the 
Agents  at  New  York,  Messrs.  Hunt  and  Eaton, 
I  was  surprised  to  learn  that  "after  a  careful 
and  thorough  search  the  records  could  not  be 
found."  Whereupon  I  published  the  following 
advertisement  in  the  Christian  Advocate  of 
June  28,  1894: 

LOST  OR  STOLEN— $100  REWARD. 

Tbe  last  General  Conference  unanimously  adopted  the 
following  resolution:  "  Whereas,  The  Rev.  J.  Lanahan  de- 
sires to  examine  the  records  of  the  Book  Committee  ap- 
pointed in  1868;  therefore,  Resolved,  That  such  permission 
be  granted  him." 


PREFACE.  Xiii 

Upon  application  to  the  Book  Agents  at  New  York, 
Messrs.  Hunt  &  Eaton,  they  wrote  me:  "We  have  made 
the  most  thorough  search,  the  second  time,  in  every  part 
of  the  building,  and  have  not  been  able  to  find  the  records 
of  the  Book  Committee  at  the  time  of  your  trial." 

I  will  pay  the  above  reward  for  the  recovery  of  said 
records,  or  for  information  that  may  lead  to  their  recovery. 

JOHN  LANAHAN, 

June  11,  1894.  118  E.  Baltimore  St.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Fortunately,  I  liad  copied  a  large  part  of  these 
records,  and  had  kept  notes  of  the  proceedings 
and  doings  of  the  Committee  and  other  events 
from  day  to  day,  all  of  which  have  been  care- 
fully preserved.  I  have  therefore  been  able  to 
furnish  in  a  substantial  and  reliable  form  the 
necessary  facts,  and  for  their  correctness  I  shall 
be  ready  and  willing  at  any  time  to  answer 
before  any  ecclesiastical  or  civil  tribunal. 

If  the  approaching  General  Conference  shall 
order  an  examination,  I  care  not  by  whom, 
nor  by  how  many,  I  shall  claim  but  one  thing — 
namely,  to  be  represented  in  person  and  by  one 
accountant  of  my  own  choosing.  If  this  is 
granted,  and  I  do  not  demonstrate  the  truth 
of  my  charges,  the  Church  will  be  justified  in 
doing  what  the  majority  of  the  Book  Committee 
and  a  part  of  the  official  press  planned  and 
labored  to  do:  Make  my  name  the  synonym  of 
infamy  and  hang  my  character  on  the  gibbet  of 
Methodist  history.  , 

As  showing  how  such  matters  as  are  given 


Xiv  PREFACE. 

in  this  narrative  were  dealt  with  by  a  sister 
church,  I  ask  attention  to  the  following:  Only 
a  few  months  ago  the  New  York  papers  an- 
nounced that  frauds  had  been  discovered  in  the 
"American  Missionary  Society,"  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church,  in  that  city.  All  allu- 
sion to  it  so  soon  disappeared  from  the  secular 
press,  that  I  was  induced  to  write  to  one  of  the 
newly  elected  oiScers  of  the  Society  for  informa- 
tion as  to  the  facts,  and  he  promptly  responded 
in  the  following,  dated  April  9tli,  1895: 

For  some  years  there  had  been  no  audit  of  the  Society's 
accounts  in  banlv  with  vouchers.  The  Secretary  had  been 
in  cliarge  for  years.  Tlie  Ti-easurer— unsalaried— was  a 
man  of  business  reputation.  The  financial  exhibits  seemed 
all  right,  the  trouble  was,  that  the  balances  had  not  been 
verified.  It  was  taken  for  granted  that  they  were  all  right. 
For  some  time,  however,  there  had  been  an  uneasy  feeling 
that  there  was  something  wrong.  Finally,  it  came  to  light 
that  the  Society's  note  for  $2,000  had  been  discounted  at  a 
bank  where  the  Society  ought  to  have  had  a  large  balance. 
An  investigation  was  ordered,  and  it  was  found  that  the 
Treasurer  had  taken  nearly  $22,000.  He  promptly  made 
restitution  and  resigned.  During  the  investigation,  the  ex- 
pert who  was  working  on  the  books  noticed  great  dis- 
crepancies in  the  Society's  accounts.  The  Secretary  had 
been  in  office  since  1869.  The  result  of  the  investigation 
showed  that  he  had  taken  from  the  Society  nearly  $19,000. 
He  began  overdrawing  his  salary  about  1883,  now  and 
then  taking  as  personal,  donations  sent  to  the  Society. 

It  is  the  same  old  story  of  taking  things 
for  granted.  No  examination,  no  auditing  with 
vouchers, — bank  books  and  exhibits  supposed  to 
be  all  right.    "For  some  time,  however,  there 


PKEFACE.  XV 

was  an  uneasy  feeling  tliat  there  was  something 
wrong."  Had  that  uneasy  feeling  been  voiced  in 
a  demand  for  investigation,  perhaps  some  over- 
sensitive people  would  have  complained  that  it 
was  a  reflection  upon  the  good  name  of  long- 
trusted  servants  of  the  Church.  Finally,  that 
irrevocable  law,  "  Be  sure  your  sin  will  find  you 
out,"  brought  the  long  delayed  explosion.  The 
newspapers  called  for  the  facts.  The  Church 
authorities  did  their  duty  and  gave  them.  The 
defrauders  were  not  allowed  to  prevent  exami- 
nation, nor  did  a  committee  plead  that  expos- 
ure would  injure  the  Church.  The  offenders 
were  expelled  from  office.  The  clergyman  was 
promptly  deposed  from  the  Christian  ministry, 
and  the  agitation  was  a  thing  of  a  day.  Last, 
not  least,  the  man  who  unearthed  the  frauds  was 
not  made  a  victim  of  persecution,  nor  was  an 
attempt  made  to  conceal  the  frauds  by  destroy- 
ing his  good  name,  as  was  attempted  in  my  case, 
by  officials  in  the  Church  that  I  faithfully  had 
served  my  life  long. 

Laymen  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church — 
than  whom  a  more  liberal  and  devoted  people 
cannot  be  found  in  Christendom, — may  I  not 
appeal  to  you  to  follow  the  example  cited 
above,  and  compel  an  honest  examination  of  my 
charges?  None  but  the  guilty  need  fear  the 
whole  truth.  It  is  pleaded  that  this  is  ''  a  dead 
issue  "  because  some  of  the  parties  are  dead.  The 


XVi  PREFACE. 

Church  is  not  dead,  the  honor  of  her  publishing 
house  is  not  dead,  public  opinion  is  not  dead, 
the  false  reports  of  the  Book  Committee  and 
J.  P.  Kilbreth  are  not  dead,  but  are  in  the  Jour- 
nal of  the  highest  council  of  the  Church,  to  be 
used  when  I  am  dead,  and  when  the  facts  of 
this  deplorable  controversy  are  made  a  part  of 
the  history  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 


GENERAL  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

I.  Appointment — Entrance    on  duty — 
Investigation  and  its  Results,  ...  1 
II.  Bindery  —  Investigation  and  its  Re- 
sults,    29 

1.  Hoffman's  salary, 30 

III.  Another  Class  of  Frauds,      ....  43 

1.  Frauds  in  leather, 44 

2.  Frauds  in  binders'  cloth  and  in 
wages,       .........  59 

3.  Frauds  in  inventories,  .     .     .     .60 

4.  Report  of  sub-committee, ...  68 

IV.  From  Privacy  to  Publicity,       ...  74 
V.  First  meeting  of  Book  Committee,    .  79 

VI.  Second  meeting  of  Book  Committee,     94 

VII,  Third  meeting  of  Book  Committee,   .  122 

VIII.  Fourth  meeting  of  Book  Committee,  131 

1.  The  trial  commenced,    ....  138 

2.  Charges  and  answers,   ....  142 

3.  Letter  of  Gen.  Rusling,      .     .     .  171 

4.  New  York  Observer,  editorial,  .  171 
IX.  Conspiracy  against  Episcopacy,    .     .  174 

X.  Bishop  Scott  Sub-Committee,    .     .     .  178 
XI.  Dr.  Carlton's  Accountants,  ....  183 


xvlii  CONTENTS. 

Page. 

XII.  Report  of  Mr.  John  A.  Guiin,    .     .     .195 

XIII.  Report  of  E.  H.  Gouge, 217 

XIV.  Suppressed  Report  of  an  Accountant, 
made  several  years  before  I  became 
one  of  the  Agents, 222 

XV.  Accounts  and  Financial  Methods,     .  231 
1.  The  periodical  account,      .     .     .  233 

XVI.  Suit  for  Slander,        250 

XVII.  Fifth  meeting  of  Book  Committee,    .  253 

1.  Decision  of  Bishop  Janes,       .     .  258 

2.  Decision  of  Bishop  Ames,       .     .  262 

3.  General  Conference  of  1872,  .     .  265 
XVIII.  Outcome  of  the  suit  of  Gobdenough,  269 

XIX.  Conclusion, 279 

APPENDICES. 

I.  Specimen    of    Fraudulent    Transac- 
tions,       . 282 

II.  Action  of  the  Baltimore  Conference, 
and  Dr.  Slicer's  Account  of  the  Con- 
duct of  the  Book  Committee,     .     .     .  293 
III.  A  Question  Answered, 303 


APPOINTMENT  — ENTRANCE    ON    DUTY— 
INVESTIGATION  AND  ITS  RESULTS. 

The  General  Conference  of  1868  convened  in 
Chicago  the  first  day  of  May.  Among  the  busi- 
ness to  be  transacted  was  the  election  of  an 
Agent,  and  an  Assistant  Agent,  and  a  Book  Com- 
mittee to  supervise  the  publishing  interests  of 
the  Church,  in  the  Book  Concern,  at  New  York. 

The  discipline  of  that  date  prescribed  the  du- 
ties and  prerogatives  of  the  Agents  and  Book 
Committee  in  these  words:  "The  Agents  shall 
have  authority  to  regulate  the  publications  and 
all  other  parts  of  the  Concern.  It  shall  be  their 
duty  to  send  an  exhibit  of  the  state  of  the  Book 
Concern  at  New  York,  to  each  session  of  the  An- 
nual Conference,  and  a  report  quadrennially,  to 
the  General  Conference." 

"The  Book  Committee  shall  consist  of  fifteen 
traveling  ministers  to  be  chosen  by  the  General 
Conference.  ...  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
Committee  to  examine  into  the  condition  of  the 
publishing  interests  of  the  Church,  to  inspect  the 
accounts  of  the  agents,  make  a  report  thereof 
yearly  to  all  the  Annual  Conferences  and  to  the 
General  Conference.  They  shall  also  attend  to 
such  matters  as  may  be  referred  to  them  by  the 
Editors  or  Agents  for  their  action  or  counsel. 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,  ETC. 


And  they  shall  have  power  to  suspend  an  Editor 
or  Agent  from  his  official  relation  as  such,  if  they 
judge  it  necessary  for  the  interests  of  the  Church 
and  the  Concern.  And  a  time  shall  be  fixed,  at 
as  early  a  date  as  practicable,  for  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  official  conduct  of  said  Editor  or 
Agent,  at  which  two  or  more  of  the  Bishops  shall 
be  requested  to  attend,  and  by  the  concurrence  of 
the  Bishops  present,  and  of  a  majority  of  the 
Committee,  he  may  be  removed  from  office  in  the 
interval  of  the  General  Conference." 

The  following  persons  were  elected  Book  Com- 
mittee : 

District  I.  James  Pike,  New  Hampshire  Conference. 

II.  G.  W.  Woodruff,  New  York  East 

III.  C.  S.  Vancleve,  Newark 

IV.  Henry  Slicer,  Baltimore 
V.  I.  S.  Bingham,  Black  River 

VI.  James  Erwin,  Central  New  York 

VII.  G.  W.  Maltby,  Erie 

VIII.  J.  F.  Kennedy,  North  Ohio 

IX.  B.  F.  Rawlins,  Indiana 

X.  F.  A.  Blades,  Detroit 

XI.  H.  Bannister,  Wisconsin 

XII.  Cyrus  Brooks,  Minnesota 

XIII.  L.  M.  Vernon,  St.  Louis 

XIV.  J.  H.  Moore,  Illinois 
XV.  J.  RoTHWEiLER,  Central  German 


During  the  session  of  the  General  Conference 
I  was  frequently  solicited  to  allow  my  name  to 
be  used  for  the  senior  agency  at  New  York.  I 
invariably  refused,  and  stated  that  it  was  my 
purpose  and  that  of  my  colleagues  from  Balti- 


ArrOINTMENT— ENTIIANUE  ON  DUTY,  ETC.  3 

more  Conference  to  vote  for  the  re-election  of 
Dr.  Thomas  Carlton,  who  had  filled  the  office 
sixteen  years.  He  was  re-elected.  When,  with 
several  others,  I  was  nominated  for  Assistant 
Agent,  I  immediately  stated  that  it  was  done 
without  authority;  that  I  was  not  a  candidate 
and  did  not  desire  an  election  to  any  office.  Much 
to  my  surprise,  however,  I  was  elected. 

I  entered  on  duty,  at  New  York,  early  in  the 
month  of  June,  and  was  cordially  received  by 
my  associate,  Dr.  Thomas  Carlton  and  all  the 
employees  of  the  house.  Nothing  was  said  to  me 
about  the  methods  and  details  of  the  business,  or 
my  particular  duties,  beyond  the  general  state- 
ment that  I  was  expected  to  give  special  atten- 
tion to  the  manufacturing  departments,  as  my 
predecessor,  Kev.  Dr.  James  Porter,  had  done. 
Casually  meeting  Dr.  Porter,  I  remarked  that  I 
should  be  obliged  to  him  for  any  suggestions  in 
regard  to  my  particular  duties.  He  replied  that 
he  would  "answer  any  questions,"  and  added, 
"I  never  have  used  one  dollar  of  the  money  of 
the  Book  Concern."  The  remark  surprised  me, 
but  I  asked  no  questions.  In  different  conversa- 
tions with  Dr.  Daniel  Wise,  Editor  of  the  Sun- 
day School  Department,  and  Dr.  Daniel  Curry, 
Editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate,  they  frequently 
suggested  that  I  give  special  attention  to  the  pur- 
chase of  paper.  After  a  while  I  was  impressed 
with  the  idea  that  they  had  especial  reasons  for 
such  suggestions. 

Having  learned  that  the  head  of  the  printing, 


4       APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,  ETC. 

and  also  the  head  of  the  bindery  department 
did  all  the  purchasing  of  the  material  used  by 
them,  I  was  led  in  the  latter  part  of  July  to 
question  the  superintendent  of  printing  about 
the  purchase  of  paper.  His  manner  and  an- 
swers impressed  me  unfavorably.  Being  unac- 
quainted with  the  details  of  such  matters,  I  de- 
termined before  making  further  inquiry,  to  take 
at  least  six  months  to  make  myself  thoroughly 
familiar  with  the  workings  of  the  Concern.  I 
may  state,  however,  that  my  first  inquiry  of 
Mr.  S.  J.  Goodenough,  in  regard  to  the  pur- 
chase of  paper,  was  made  in  July,  1868,  and 
that  for  some  reason,  there  was  an  imanediate 
change  in  his  manner  of  making  purchases. 

Sometime  in  the  faU  of  1868,  Mr.  W.  D.  Wil- 
son, a  dealer  in  ink,  called  on  me  and  stated  that 
in  the  previous  year  he  had  agreed  with  Messrs. 
Carlton  and  Porter  to  purchase  $300.00  worth 
of  books  as  a  present  to  the  Pacific  St.  Sunday 
School,  Brooklyn,  of  which  Kev.  Dr.  Thomas 
Sewell  was  pastor,  payment  for  which  was  to 
be  made  in  ink  of  his  manufacture;  that  a  large 
part  of  it  had  been  delivered  and  used,  but  some 
of  it  had  been  returned  as  unfit  for  use  with 
notice  from  Mr.  Goodenough  that  he  would  re- 
ceive no  more  from  him,  and  that  though  he 
had  made  several  efforts,  he  could  get  no  satis- 
factory explanation.  He  also  stated  that  sev- 
eral large  houses  in  New  York  used  his  ink, 
among  them  the  Harper  Bros.  I  inquired  of 
that  firm  and  they  informed  me  that  they  used 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,  ETC.  5 

Wilson's  ink  on  their  Magazine,  Weekly,  Bazar 
and  like  publications,  with  entire  satisfaction. 
In  another  interview  with  Mr.  Good  enough,  I 
stated  that  if  the  above  house  used  Wilson's  ink 
on  such  publications,  it  ought  to  be  good  enough 
for  our  children's  papers,  and  requested  hiin  to 
order  a  small  quantity  for  another  trial.  This 
was  done,  and  after  a  few  days,  it  was  condemned 
and  complaint  came  to  the  Agents  that  the 
ink  "set  off,"  and  blacked  the  hands  of  those 
who  handled  the  papers.  Mr.  Wilson  then  sent 
as  a  test,  not  stating  the  quality,  some  of  Palmer's 
English  Ink — the  best  in  the  market — which  he 
sold  at  |5.00  per  pound.  That  also  was  con- 
demned as  unsuitable. 

While  this  matter  was  pending  the  man  who 
had  been  furnishing  us  with  ink  at  $1.00  per 
pound,  called  on  me  and  said  he  would  sell  us 
ink  as  cheaply  as  any  other  dealer,  and  volun- 
teered to  deduct  ten  per  cent,  from  the  bill  then 
due  him,  which  was  |1,345.00.  He  also  offered 
to  give  1500.00  towards  our  new  building  on 
Broadway,  or  to  the  Mssionary  Societj^,  as  I 
might  choose.  I  declined  both  his  offers,  and 
began  to  express  my  apprehension  of  wrong-do- 
ing in  the  purchase  of  ink.  He  looked  troubled, 
left  the  office  promising  to  call  again,  which  he 
never  did. 

Finding  myself  circumvented  at  every  point, 
I  abandoned,  for  the  time,  the  further  pursuit 
of  the  matter,  believing,  however,  that  we  were 
paying  |1.00  x)er  pound   for   a   quality  of  ink 


6       APPOIXTMEN'T— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,  ETC. 

wliicli  could  be  purchased  for  twenty-five  cents 
per  pound.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that 
Goodenough  did  all  the  purchasing  for  the 
printing  department  without  the  slightest  over- 
sight by  the  Agents,  and  all  bills  and  monthly 
statements,  if  simply  marked  with  his  initials, 
were  paid  by  the  cashier  without  examination, 
there  being  at  the  time  no  entry  clerk  to  make 
a  record  of  the  goods  received.  His  purchases 
of  paper  alone  averaged  largely  more  than 
1100,000  per  year.  He  also  paid  all  the  wages 
of  his  department  every  two  weeks,  drawing 
from  the  cashier  the  amount  named  by  himself 
upon  an  order  in  these  words:  "Due  for  wages 
in  Printing  Department,  | S.  J.  G." 

The  wages  averaged  about  |1800.00  every  pay- 
day. 

Goodenough's  conduct  in  the  matter  of  the 
ink,  caused  me  to  be  apprehensive  that  there 
might  be  wrong-doing  in  matters  of  much  great- 
er magnitude,  and  I  therefore  determined  to 
make  a  thorough  examination  into  his  depart- 
ment, especially  the  purchase  of  paper.  I  re- 
quested the  book-keeper  to  show  me  some  of  the 
vouchers  for  paper  purchased.  He  said  he  had 
none;  that  Mr.  Goodenough  kept  them,  and  that 
he  made  entries  in  the  account  books  from 
"Monthly  Statements."  I  named  this  to  Dr. 
Carlton,  who  replied:  "That  is  all  right,  Mr. 
Goodenough  keeps  the  vouchers."  I  expressed 
surprise  that  the  man  who  purchased,  received, 


APPOINTIMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,  ETC.  7 

and  directed  the  use  of  the  paper,  should  be  al- 
lowed to  retain  the  only  proper  vouchers,  and 
the  house  pay  on  monthly  statements.  Dr.  Carl- 
ton insisted  that  it  was  all  right. 

The  first  regular  meeting  of  the  Book  Commit- 
tee, appointed  by  the  General  Conference  of 
1868,  was  held  the  next  succeeding  February, 
when  a  standing  sub-committee  was  appointed, 
Kev.  Jas.  Pike,  chairman.  At  one  of  its  sessions, 
questions  were  asked  by  the  committee  in  regard 
to  the  management  of  the  Book  Concern.  Dr. 
Carlton  replied:  "We  have  a  perfect  system  of 
checks  and  balances,  so  that  nothing  can  go 
wrong  without  the  knowledge  of  the  Agents."  I 
remarked  that  I  did  not  thinls  the  checks  and 
balances  as  good  as  he  seemed  to.  The  commit- 
tee gave  no  attention  to  my  remark,  and  I  did 
not  particularize.  I  was  so  anxious  to  induce 
the  committee  to  question  me  about  the  methods 
of  business,  that  I  asked  whether  in  their  judg- 
ment, I  had  the  right  by  my  own  act  to  discharge 
an  employee.  My  reasons  for  the  question  were 
not  asked,  but  in  an  informal  way  they  indi- 
cated that  I  could  not  do  it  without  the  consent 
of  the  Senior  Agent.  He  did  not  speak.  There 
were  no  outside  persons  present  at  this  meeting, 
but  a  few  days  after  a  manufacturer  of  paper 
told  me  that  Mr.  J.  F.  Porter  said  to  him,  "I 
have  an  open  field  in  the  Book  Concern;  the 
committee  decided  that  Lanahan  is  a  subordi- 
nate, and  has  no  power." 

The   committee   expressed    the    oiDinion   that 


8       APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,  ETC. 

it  would  be  well  for  one  of  the  agents  to  live 
in  the  city  so  as  to  be  convenient  to  the  Con- 
cern in  case  of  an  emergency,  and  proposed  to 
add  1500  to  the  salary,  which  was  |4,500.00, 
in  view  of  the  increased  cost  of  house  rent. 
I  expressed  a  willingness  to  do  so,  but  stated 
that  I  would  not  consent  to  receive  a  larger 
salary  than  the  other  General  Conference  offi- 
cers, all  of  whom  lived  out  of  the  city.  They 
pressed  the  matter  upon  me,  and  I  finally 
stated  that  if  the  increase  was  allowed  I  posi- 
tively would  not  draw  the  money  and  thus  be 
made  invidious.  Many  times  I  have  had  cause 
to  be  thankful  that  I  so  determined.  If  I  had 
allowed  it,  strange  stories  might  have  been  pro- 
claimed throughout  the  Church.  I  paid  |1800 
for  a  very  plain  house  not  far  from  the  Book 
Concern.  I  could  have  rented  as  good  for  |500 
in  one  of  the  adjacent  towns. 

After  the  adjournment  of  the  committee,  I 
reminded  Dr.  Carlton  of  what  he  had  said,  and 
again  expressed  my  disapproval  of  the  Superin- 
tendent keeping  the  only  proper  vouchers  of  pur- 
chases of  paper  that  amounted  to  so  large  a  sum 
of  money,  but  my  protest  availed  nothing. 

As  evidence  that  this  and  another  strange 
practice  was  of  long  standing,  and  one  not  ap- 
proved by  a  former  committee,  I  cite  the  follow- 
ing from  the  records  of  that  committee,  dated 
February  28th,  1862.  "The  Committee  sug- 
gest that  if  the  reception  of  money  was  more 
exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  cashier,  an  ad- 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRAKCB  ON  DUTY,  ETO.       9 

vantage  might  be  gained.  And  it  is  also  sug- 
gested that  the  vouchers  for  money  paid  in  the 
printing  and  bindery  departments,  should  be 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Agents,  and  not  re- 
tained by  the  heads  of  the  former. 

CHARLES  B.  TIPPET, 
S.  Y.  MONROE." 

The  above  shows  that  the  practice  of  allowing 
the  two  heads  of  the  printing  and  bindery  de- 
partments to  retain  the  only  proper  vouchers 
was  of  long  standing;  not  only  so,  but  that  the 
"reception  of  money"  was  not  "exclusively 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  cashier."  I  suppose 
the  committee  of  that  quadrennium  thought  a 
mere  "suggestion"  was  all  that  was  needed  to 
correct  such  glaring  improprieties,  but  no  change 
was  made  in  the  existing  methods. 

Having  had  about  ten  months'  experience  and 
observation  in  the  Book  Concern,  I  thought 
proper  to  ask  Mr.  Goodenough  for  the  vouchers 
for  paper  purchased  for  one  year.  Instead  of 
the  vouchers  he  sent  two  "  Order  Books,"  which 
contained  only  the  stubs  of  the  orders  he  had 
sent  out,  with  the  following  note: 

Methodist  Book  Concern,   April  22,   1869. 
Dr.  Lanahan: 

I  called  at  your  desk  two  or  three  times  to  answer  your 
question  in  person,  but  found  you  engaged  elsewhere.  These 
books  contain  all  the  orders  for  stock  within  the  time 
named.  I  have  not  made  contracts  with  parties,  but  have 
made  orders  from  time  to  time,  taking  advantage  of  the 
market  as  to  prices,  and  not  confining  orders  to  any  one, 


10  APPOINTMEXT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC. 

unless  it  proved  of  advantage  to  the  House.  In  a  falling 
market  contracts  are  annoying.  1  sliall  be  glad  to  explain 
anj'thing  you  may  not  quite  understand,  i  am  confident 
that  we  have  bought  at  the  lowest  market  rates,  and  not 
infrequently  below  the  market. 

Yours,  etc.,  S.  J.  GOODENOUGH. 

I  returned  the  order  books,  and  requested  him 
to  send  me  tlie  original  bills  for  one  year,  wMcb. 
lie  did.  These  bills  showed  that  all  the  paper 
for  the  year  had  been  purchased  of  the  following 
persons:  S.  D.  Warren,  Boston;  Campbell,  Hall 
&  Co.,  New  York;  J.  F.  Porter,  a  son  of  my  pre- 
decessor, Dr.  James  Porter. 

On  examination  of  one  of  Porter's  vouchers, 
dated  April  30th,  1868,  it  showed  that  he  had 
charged  the  Concern  |13.50  per  ream  for  a 
certain  lot  of  paper.  The  books  of  the  firm  from 
which  he  purchased  it,  and  his  own  subsequent 
admission,  proved  that  he  had  bought  it  the  day 
before  for  |10.80  per  ream,  thus  realizing  a 
profit  for  himself  of  more  than  twenty-five  per 
cent.  Until  Porter  obtained  control  of  the  pur- 
chases, this  firm  had  sold  the  Concern  direct, 
and  I  was  assured  by  them  that  they  would 
have  much  preferred  to  sell  to  the  Concern  as 
low  as  to  Porter,  if  its  proper  representative  had 
called  upon  them. 

This  flnexpected  development  was  so  contrary 
to  Goodenough's  statement  in  his  note  that  I  de- 
termined to  make  a  still  more  thorough  exami- 
nation of  the  purchases  of  paper.  I  first  called 
upon  the  New  York  firm  above  alluded  to,  and 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETO.  11 

tliey  informed  me  that  for  several  years  all  or- 
ders from  tlie  Concern  came  through  J.  F.  Porter, 
who  claimed  to  have  entire  control  of  the  pur- 
chasing for  the  Book  Kooms,  and  that  they  could 
get  no  orders  except  as  they  paid  Porter  a  per- 
centage, or  commission,  which  percentage,  by 
his  direction,  was  added  to  the  price  they  would 
have  sold  to  the  Concern  if  its  proper  represen- 
tative had  delivered  the  orders.  They  said  fur- 
ther, that  it  was  an  unusual  way  of  doing  busi- 
ness, but  that  they  had  submitted  to  it  because 
it  was  understood  by  the  trade  generally,  that  no 
paper  could  be  sold  to  the  Methodist  Book  Con- 
cern except  through  Porter,  and  upon  such  con- 
ditions as  he  dictated.  The  orders  delivered  by 
Porter  were  in  the  name  of  the  Book  Concern, 
and  signed  by  Goodenough,  the  bills  being  made 
out  to  the  house,  and  not  to  Porter.  This  firm's 
place  of  business  was,  and  is  yet,  within  ten 
minutes'  walk  of  the  Book  Concern,  yet  Goode- 
nough had  been  there  but  twice  in  four  years, 
and  then  merely  to  inquire  about  certain  grades 
of  paper,  the  orders  for  which  were  subsequently 
delivered  by  Porter,  and  upon  these  also,  he  re- 
ceived a  percentage,  which  was  added  to  the 
price,  all  of  which  the  Book  Concern  paid. 

A  day  or  two  after  I  had  made  these  discov- 
eries, I  told  Mr.  Goodenough  that  in  m^^  exami- 
nation of  the  paper  purchases,  I  had  found  that 
the  facts  were  in  conflict  with  the  statements 
contained  in  his  note.  He  said  he  would  like  to 
see  it  proved,  and  again  assured  me  that  he  fre- 


12  APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC. 

quently  canvassed  the  market,  and  lie  was  con- 
fident that  he  often  purchased  below  the  market 
price.  I  asked  him  if  he  purchased  directly  from 
the  manufacturers.  He  replied  that  he  did. 
Determined  to  prevent  the  possibility  of  being 
misunderstood,  I  said,  "  What  I  mean  is  this :  do 
you  purchase  directly  from  the  persons  whose 
bills  we  pay?"  He  assured  me  that  he  did.  I 
then  said,  "Is  there  any  third  person  between 
you  and  the  dealers  from  whom  you  purchase?" 
He  replied  that  there  was  not.  I  asked  him  how 
he  delivered  his  orders.  He  answered  that  he 
delivered  them  in  person,  or  sent  them  by  mail. 
I  asked  him  to  state  the  date  and  amount  of  his 
last  order.  He  said  that  it  was  about  two  weeks 
before,  and  was  for  five  hundred  reams  of  extra 
super-calendered  paper.  I  asked  him  how  he 
delivered  that  order.  He  replied  that  he  could 
not  remember.  I  reminded  him  that  it  amount- 
ed to  about  15,1.30.00,  and  that  he  ought  to  re- 
member hoAv  he  delivered  an  order  of  that  mag- 
nitude. He  insisted  that  he  could  not  remember, 
yet  this  order  had  been  made  April  1st,  (mly 
eleven  days  before. 

This  interview,  I  may  say,  was  in  the  presence 
of  Dr.  Carlton.  I  had  previously  collected  evi- 
dence that  all  of  these  statements  were  positive- 
ly false,  but  deemed  it  best  not  to  present  it 
until  I  had  gotten  it  in  writing.  From  the  New 
York  firm  I  received  subsequently  the  following 
copy  of  the  order  referred  to: 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC.  13 

Methodist  Book  Concern,  New  York,  April  11th,  1869. 

Messrs.  Campbell,  Hall  &  Co.: 

Please  forward  500  reams  of  extra  sup.  cal.  29x42—54. 
19  cents. 

Respectfully,   S.  J.  GOODKNOUGH. 

The  above  order  was  delivered  by  Porter,  upon 
it  lie  received  2i  per  cent.,  and  one  cent  per 
pound,  which  by  his  order,  was  added  to  the 
price,  the  Book  Concern  paying  the  bill.  They 
also  gave  me  a  statement  in  writing  of  fifty-one 
orders,  in  the  preceding  four  years,  all  of  which 
were  in  the  name  of  the  Book  Concern,  and 
signed  "  S.  J.  Goodenough,"  but  .were  delivered 
by  Porter.  These  orders  amounted  in  the  aggre- 
gate to  1174,985.24.  Being  thus  further  assured 
that  Goodenough's  statements  were  false,  I  laid 
the  facts  before  Dr.  Carlton,  and  asked  him  to 
examine  them.  Instead  of  doing  so,  he  indulged 
in  severe  criticisms  upon  Porter,  stating  grave 
matters  of  which  I  had  not  previously  heard,  and 
greatly  increased  my  surprise  that  such  a  man 
should  have  been  allowed  the  control  of  so  large 
an  interest  of  the  House. 

At  a  subsequent  interview  between  Dr.  Carl- 
ton, myself  and  Mr.  Goodenough,  Goodenough 
gave  as  a  reason  for  his  former  statement  that 
there  was  no  "third  party,"  that  he  thought 
Porter  was  the  clerk  of  the  New  York  firm.  I 
replied  that  he  could  not  have  so  thought,  as  he 
had  known  Porter  for  many  years,  and  was  at 
that  time  purchasing  more  paper  from  him,  in 
his   own  name,  than  from   all   other  persons. 


14  APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC. 

Wliile  this  interview  was  going  on  I  received  a 
note  from  Boston,  informing  me  that  Porter  con- 
trolled our  business  there,  and  I  said  to  Goode- 
nough:  "I  shall  not  be  surprised  to  find  that 
Porter  controls  our  business  in  Boston,  as  he 
does  in  New  York."  With  an  air  of  injured  in- 
nocence, he  threw  himself  back  in  the  chair  and 
said,  "That  is  ridiculous,  you  will  find  no  such 
thing."  I  then  read  to  him  the  note  referred  to 
as  follows:  "We  pay  Porter  a  commission,  and 
can't  do  business  with  the  Book  Concern  in  any 
other  way."  I  remarked,  "  Here  is  a  rebuttal  to 
your  denial,  strangely  received  during  this  con- 
versation." I  handed  the  note  to  Dr.  Carlton  to 
read.  Goodenough  was  silent,  and  did  not  then, 
as  in  the  former  case — and  as  he  did  subsequent- 
ly— plead  that  Porter  was  a  clerk  of  the  Boston 
house.  As  was  usual  when  Goodenough  was 
present  Dr.  Carlton  was  silent. 

The  day  following  this  interview,  I  told  Dr. 
Carlton  that  Goodenough  must  leave  the  House, 
or  I  would.  I  also  wrote  a  brief  statement  to 
the  then  Chairman  of  the  Book  Committee,  Dr. 
Slicer,  informing  him  of  my  probable  resignation. 
Dr.  Carlton  proposed  to  assign  Goodenough  to 
another  position  in  the  House.  I  objected.  He 
then  proposed  that  he  be  allowed  to  resign,  the 
resignation  to  take  effect  in  six  months.  I  ob- 
jected, that  I  would  not  do  business  even  six 
months  with  a  man  who  had  told  falsehoods  to 
conceal  his  frauds.  He  then  said  that  Goode- 
nough had  many  friends  among  our  preachers  in 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC.  15 

New  York,  and  tliat  Ms  removal  would  create 
great  excitement.  I  replied  tliat  we  were  agents 
of  the  whole  churcli,  and  should  not  be  deterred 
from  our  duty  because  a  man's  friends  were  nu- 
merous among  the  preachers.  He  then  said 
that  Mr.  Goodenough  was  a  member  of  the 
"Printers'  Union,"  as  were  many  of  the  men 
under  him,  and  that  they  might  rebel.  I  replied 
that  if  any  of  them  interfered  they  ought  to  be 
discharged.  He  asked  what  I  would  do  if  they 
all  rebelled?  I  answered  that  I  would  favor 
closing  the  house  until  men  could  be  found  who 
would  mind  their  own  business.  He  then  pro- 
posed to  call  in  some  of  the  preachers  of  New 
York.  I  acquiesced,  but  he  declined  to  carry 
out  his  own  proposition.  He  then  proposed  to 
call  in  Rev.  Bishop  Janes.  To  this  I  also  agreed. 
The  Bishop  came,  and  after  hearing  a  brief  state- 
ment of  the  case,  said  "Mr.  Goodenough  ought 
to  be  allowed  to  resign."  Dr.  Carlton  said  he  was 
afraid  Goodenough  would  refuse  to  resign.  The 
Bishop  replied  that  that  was  not  for  Goode- 
nough to  determine.  After  all  this  and  like  de- 
mur from  Dr.  Carlton,  Goodenough's  resignation 
came  and  was  accepted,  to  take  effect  at  the  end 
of  thirty  days.  He  remained  half  that  time,  and 
received  pay  for  the  whole. 

I  continued  my  investigations,  and  in  the 
prosecution  of  them  received  the  following  let- 
ters from  the  house  in  Boston: 


16  APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC. 

Boston,  June  14th,   1869. 
Mr.  J.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir:— I  am  in  receipt  of  yours  of  the  10th  inst.,  mak- 
ing inquiry  respecting  the  orders  for  paper  from  the  Metho- 
dist Book  Concern.    I  will  answer  your  questions. 

1.  All  orders  which  Grant,  Warren  and  myself  have  re- 
ceived since  July,  1867,  have  come  direct  from  the  house. 
For  one  year  (from  July,  1867  to  July,  1868,)  no  orders  were 
received  from  the  house.  Since  July,  1868,  the  orders  in  the 
main,  have  come  through  J.  F.  Porter. 

2.  On  these  orders,  that  is,  from  July,  1868,  a  commis- 
sion has  been  paid. 

3.  The  sum  paid  in  the  aggregate,  amounted  to  $3,310.50. 

I  trust  this  reply  will  be  satisfactory.  If  further  expla- 
nation is  needed,  it  will  be  cheerfully  given.  Some  one  from 
my  house  will  call  upon  you  some  time  next  week. 

Yours,  etc,  S.  D.  WARREN. 


Boston,  December  28th,  1869. 
Rev.  J.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— The  amount  of  paper  furnished  the  M.  B.  C, 
on  which  I  paid  Mr.  J.  F.  Porter  the  difference  in  the  price 
charged  the  house,  and  the  price  agreed  with  him,  was 
$62,732.57. 
I  remain,  Yours  very  truly, 

S.  D.  WARREN,  per  W.  H.  Wardwell. 


Boston,  August  17th,  1869. 
Mr.  J.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— Yours  of  the  13th  inst.,  is  received.  In  my  let- 
ter of  June  14th,  I  stated  that  no  orders  were  received  by 
me  from  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  from  July,  1867  to 
July,  1868.  I  should  have  excepted  the  newspaper,  33%x46- 
56;  about  80  reams  per  week  for  the  Christian  Advocate. 
These  orders  came  direct  from  the  house,  but  upon  these 
Mr.  Porter  received  a  commission.  In  reply  to  your  inquiry: 

1.  Early  in  July,  1867,  Mr.  Goodenough  stated  to  me  that 
an  arrangement  had  been  made  by  which  he  was  to  be 
relieved  of  the  care  that  was  pressing  upon  him,  and  was 
to  have  the  assistance  of  Mr.  J.  F.  Porter;  that  Mr.  Porter 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,  ETC.  17 

was  to  purchase  all  the  paper  we  might  sell  to  the  Metho- 
dist Book  Concern.    We  must  arrange  with  him  as  to  terms. 

2.  Mr.  Porter  having  been  so  introduced,  I  treated  with 
him  as  to  prices,  and,  under  the  pressure  of  competition, 
fixed  a  very  low  figure  the  paper  must  yield  me,  not  know- 
ing what  price  he  intended  to  charge  the  Book  Concern. 

When  the  orders  again  came  in  the  name  of  the  house, 
but  as  before,  through  Mr.  Porter,  my  price  remained  the 
same,  and  the  difference  between  my  price  and  that  paid 
by  the  Book  Concern,  was  given  to  Mr.  Porter,  as  commis- 
sion.   This  was  done  as  necessary  to  retain  the  business. 

Yours,  etc.,  S.  D.  WARREN. 

From  this  letter  it  appears  that  in  July,  1867^ 
the  Boston  house  was  informed  by  Goodenough 
that  thereafter  J.  F.  Porter  was  to  purchase  all 
the  paper  for  the  Book  Concern,  and  that  they 
must  arrange  with  him  as  to  terms:  That  they 
paid  Porter  a  commission  on  all  paper  sold  to  the 
Concern:  That  they  could  not  retain  the  busi- 
ness in  any  other  way:  That  in  July,  1868, 
orders  again  went  to  them  in  the  name  of  the 
Book  Concern,  but,  as  before,  through  Porter, 
who  continued  to  receive  a  commission.  This 
proves  that  my  first  inquiry  of  Goodenough  (in 
July,  1868),  led  to  an  immediate  change  in  the 
form  of  making  the  purchases  by  Porter,  and 
further  demonstrated  that  this  whole  arrange- 
ment was  a  secret  contrivance  between  Goode- 
nough and  Porter,  whereby  the  Book  Concern 
was  defrauded  out  of  the  amount  received  by 
Porter. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  books  show  that 
Porter  had  controlled  the  purchase  of  paper  for 
the  house  prior  to  1864.    This  could  only  be 


18  APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC. 

done  througli  the  connivance  of  Goodenougli. 
From  1864  to  1869,  Porter  sold  to  the  Concern 
direct,  and  received  a  percentage  on  purchases 
from  other  dealers,  to  the  amount  of  about 
1526,617.50.  I  do  not  say  what  were  his  profits 
and  percentage  on  this  enormous  sum,  but  from 
the  specimens  of  exorbitant  prices  charged  by 
him,  which  I  shall  furnish  in  another  part  of  this 
narrative,  a  tolerably  correct  judgment  can  be 
formed. 

I  need  not  argue  here  that  this  arrangement 
with  Porter  was  improper,  nor  try  to  prove  that 
it  was  a  breach  of  trust.  The  anxiety  of  Goode- 
nough  to  conceal  it,  his  tergiversations  and  con- 
tradictory statements,  the  testimony  of  the 
firms  who  were  compelled  to  submit  to  it,  suffi- 
ciently demonstrate  its  fraudulent  character. 
In  point  of  fact,  J.  F.  Porter  enjoyed  a  monopoly 
of  the  purchase  of  paper  for  the  Book  Concern 
by  a  secret  arrangement  with  Goodenough,  and 
upon  every  pound  the  Concern  bought,  no  mat- 
ter how  ordered,  nor  from  whom,  he  levied  a  tax, 
which  the  dealers,  by  his  direction,  added  to  the 
cost,  and  this  the  house  had  to  pay. 

It  is  not  unusual  to  buy  paper  and  other  mer- 
chandise through  brokers,  but  when  was  it  ever 
heard  that  a  man  was  employed  as  a  broker  for 
a  house  or  houses,  when  he  himself  was  engaged 
in  selling  in  his  own  name  the  same  article  as 
the  house  or  houses  that  employed  him?  The 
New  York  and  Boston  houses  both,  as  I  shall 
show,  repudiated  the  statement  that  they  em- 


APPOINTMBNT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC.  19 

ployed  Porter  to  sell  paper  for  them,  yet  in  the 
face  of  their  written  and  published  denials,  The 
Christian  Advocate  repeatedly  told  the  church 
that  Porter  was  a  "middle  man"  or  "broker," 
and  was  employed  by  these  houses.  The  case 
was  of  one  man  who  was  allowed  to  take  full 
possession  of  this  part  of  the  immense  business. 
All  the  while  the  dealers  verbally,  and  in  writing, 
testified  that  they  would  have  sold  as  cheaply 
to  the  Concern  as  to  Porter,  less  the  percentage 
he  received.  It  would  have  been  more  than 
strange  if  they  would  not. 

It  was  well  known  that  at  the  General  Con- 
ference of  1868,  Dr.  Carlton  gave  as  a  reason 
why  his  colleague.  Dr.  Porter,  should  not  be  re- 
elected, that  his  son  James  had  a  monopoly  of 
the  purchase  of  paper  to  the  damage  of  the 
Concern;  and  yet,  after  my  election.  Porter  was 
allowed  to  continue  this  shameful  monopoly, 
until  I  discovered  the  fraud  and  stopped  it.  But 
still  more  amazing  is  the  fact,  that  in  my  efforts 
to  correct  the  wrongs,  I  met  with  the  most  de- 
termined opposition,  and  finally  a  powerful  com- 
bination, headed  by  Dr.  Carlton,  and  the  Editor 
and  Assistant  Editor  of  The  Christian  Advocate, 
and  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher,  was  formed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  expelling  me  from  my  office  in  disgrace. 
And  even  yet  more  amazing,  a  majority  of  the 
Book  Committee  finally  joined  the  combination, 
and  not  only  assumed  prerogatives  that  did  not 
belong  to  them,  but,  as  will  appear  in  this  nar- 
rative, actually  trampled  upon  the  law  of  the 


20  APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE   ON  DUTY,   ETC. 

Churcli,  and  every  principle  of  common  justice  to 
accomplisli  their  horrible  purpose. 

At  this  point  I  put  the  evidence  of  the  Goode- 
nough-Porter  fraud  briefly,  in  the  following  ser- 
ies of  statements. 

Statement  I. — That  James  F.  Porter  was  al- 
lowed to  control  the  purchase  of  paper  for  the 
Book  Concern  to  his  own  personal  profit,  and  to 
the  detriment  of  the  Concern. 

As  proof  that  Porter  controlled  the  business, 
I  give  some  of  the  letters  of  the  houses  from 
which  the  purchases  were  made.  The  following 
is  an  extract  from  the  letter  of  S.  D.  Warren, 
Boston,  already  quoted  in  full: 

"Early  in  July,  1867,  Mr.  Goodenough  stated 
to  me  that  an  arrangement  had  been  made  by 
which  he  was  to  be  relieved  of  the  care  that  was 
pressing  upon  him,  and  was  to  have  the  assist- 
ance of  Mr.  J.  F.  Porter.  That  Mr.  Porter  was 
to  purchase  all  the  paper  we  might  furnish  the 
M.  B.  C.  We  must  arrange  with  Mr.  Porter  as 
to  terms."  The  same  letter  further  says :  "  We 
fixed  a  low  price  the  paper  must  yield  us,  not 
knowing  what  price  he  (Porter),  intended  to 
charge  the  Book  Concern."  He  could,  and  did 
charge  what  he  pleased. 

In  another  letter,  dated  Boston,  December  28, 
1869,  this  same  firm  writes  as  follows: 

Mr.  J.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— You  ask  if  Mr.  J.  F.  Porter  was  employed  by 
us  to  sell  paper  to  the  Methodist  Book  Concern.  I  answer 
he  was  not. 

Respectfully,  S.  D.  WARREN. 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC.  21 

Tlie  following  letter  from  Campbell,  Hall  & 
Co.,  I  also  offer  in  evidence: 

New  York,  November  6th,  1869. 
Rev.  J.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— Porter  frequently  told  us  that  he  had  entire  con- 
trol of  the  orders  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern.  He  was 
never  employed  by  us  to  sell  paper.  Our  broker  is  Mr. 
Theodore  Bartowe,  to  whom  we  pay  one  per  cent,  (one  cent 
on  the  dollar),  on  all  sales  made  by  him. 

Yours  truly,  CAMPBELL,  HALL  &  CO. 

In  another  letter  of  date  November  10,  1869, 
tbe  same  firm  says: 

From  1863  to  1867,  we  paid  Porter  two  and  one-half  per 
cent,  on  Book  Concern  purchases  of  paper.  His  demand  for 
one  cent  a  pound  additional  we  paid  under  protest,  believ- 
ing the  time  would  come  when  we  could  break  up  the 
infamous  system,  and  ourselves  and  others  be  righted,  and 
do  business  with  your  House  as  we  had  formerly  done  be- 
fore Porter  came  on  the  field  of  action,  and  in  the  same 
manner  as  we  did  with  other  large  customers. 

Yours  truly,  CAMPBELL,  HALL  &  CO. 

I  present  also  as  further  proof,  the  statements 
of  these  houses,  showing  the  amount  of  pur- 
chases and  percentages  realized  by  Porter:  From 
the  New  York  House  Porter  received  in  1868, 
12,917.25.  In  the  same  year  he  made  on  what 
he  sold  in  his  own  name,  $6,872,84,  making 
19,790.09. 

Aside  from  these  amounts,  there  were  about 
$10,000  of  Porter's  sales  I  was  not  able  to  trace. 
I  never  believed  the  paper  was  received,  though 
paid  for.  Allowing  twenty  per  cent,  on  that 
sum,  a  smaU  estimate,  would  make  his  gains 


22  APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC. 

111,790  in  a  single  year,  ending  July,  1868,  Is 
the  Metliodist  Episcopal  Church  any  longer  sur- 
prised that  I  preferred  to  resign  my  position 
rather  than  to  be  a  party  to  these  fraudulent  and 
outrageous  transactions?  Porter  continued,  in 
spite  of  my  protest,  to  control  the  business  until 
June,  1869,  a  period  of  about  nine  months.  Dur- 
ing this  period  he  received  from  the  Boston 
House  13,310.50,  and  from  the  New  York  firm 
|5,785,  aggregating  |9,095.50<  This  certainly 
was  a  handsome  salary  for  doing  what  Goode- 
nough  declared  he  himself  did,  when  he  "fre- 
quently canvassed  the  market  to  get  the  lowest 
13rices."  From  the  "Order  Books"  of  Goode- 
nough,  I  ascertained  that  in  some  cases  Porter 
received  as  high  as  four  and  five  cents  per  pound 
profit.  I  add  also  the  letters  of  these  houses  in 
which  they  state  that  they  would  have  sold  as 
cheaply  to  the  Book  Concern  as  to  Porter,  less 
the  percentage  received  by  Porter. 

Boston,  October  12tli,  1869. 
John  Lanahan,  D.  D, 

My  Dear  Sir.— You  ask  in  yours  of  yesterday,  whether 
from  July,  1867  to  July,  1868  I  would,  under  the  same  cir- 
cumstances, have  sold  paper  to  the  Methodist  Book  Concern 
at  the  same  price  I  sold  to  Mr.  J.  F.  Porter,  if  the  agents  of 
the  Book  Concern  or  their  employees  had  applied  to  me  in 
person.  I  reply,  I  know  no  reason  why,  under  the  same 
circumstances,  I  should  not  have  sold  as  low  to  the  Metho- 
dist Book  Concern  as  to  Porter. 

Yours  respectfully,  S.  D.  WARREN. 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC.  23 

New  York,  January  25th,  1869, 
Rev.  Dr.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— In  reply  to  your  inquiry  wtiether  we  should 
have  furnished  the  Book  Concern  the  paper  sold  to  Mr. 
Porter,  and  upon  the  same  terms,  we  have  to  say,  we 
should  most  certainly  have  done  so. 

Yours  truly,   CAMPBELL,  HALL  &  CO. 

November  ITtli,  1869,  Goodenougli  presented 
to  the  Book  Committee  a  long  letter  in  which 
he  stated  that  he  had  shown  to  the  Boston  House 
a  proof  sheet  of  his  defence,  in  which  he  stated 
that  Porter  was  employed  by  that  firm.  I  sent  a 
copy  of  this  letter  to  the  firm  and  received  in 
reply  the  following: 

As  to  the  question  of  the  agency  of  Mr.  Porter,  Mr.  Good- 
enough  did  show  me  a  proof  of  his  defence,  which  stated 
that  Mr.  Porter  was  my  agent.  I  told  him  distinctly  that 
he  was  not.  He  knew  that  he  was  not  and  never  had 
been. 

Yours  truly,  S.  D.  WARREN. 

Statement  n. — ^That  the  fact  of  Porter's  pur- 
chasing in  this  way  was  known  to  Dr.  Carlton, 
and  at  the  last  General  Conference  assigned  by 
him  as  a  reason  why  his  colleague  should  not  be 
re-elected,  and  that  nevertheless,  Porter  con- 
tinued to  control  the  purchases  until  I,  in  the 
face  of  great  opposition  and  personal  abuse, 
stopped  it. 

As  proof,  I  presented  to  the  Book  Committee 
the  af&davit  of  a  respectable  gentleman,  in  which 
he  said  Dr.  Carlton  told  him,  "the  reason  Dr. 
Porter  was  not  returned  as  Agent  of  the  Book 
Concern  by  the  General  Conference,  was  that  his 


24  APPOrNTaiENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,  ETC. 

son  had  been  employed  as  middle  man  in  the  pur- 
chase of  paper  for  the  Concern."  (See  paper 
marked  4  among  the  records  of  the  Book  Com- 
mittee.) I  could  have  added  the  testimony  of 
several  others. 

Statement  m. — ^That  Goodenough  assigned  to 
the  Boston  House  as  a  reason  for  giving  this 
business  to  Porter,  that  to  use  his  own  words,  he 
must  be  "relieved  of  the  care  that  was  pressing 
upon  him,"  whereas  he,  during  these  years,  in- 
stead of  giving  his  time  and  attention  to  the 
Book  Concern,  was  giving  them  to  outside  specu- 
lations of  Immense  magnitude  and  variety. 

I  cite  as  proof  of  Goodenough's  assertion  the 
letter  from  Boston,  dated  August  17th,  1869, 
already  quoted.  (See  letter  signed  S.  D.  Warren, 
page  16). 

I  name  as  evidence  of  Goodenough's  outside 
speculations,  or  rather  enterprises,  that  consti- 
tuted the  "care  that  was  pressing  upon  him," 
the  Charter  of  the  "Crown  Petroleum  Co.,  New 
York  and  Canada,"  dated  March  19th,  1865, 
Capital  Stock  $150,000.00,  T.  Carlton,  President; 
H.  R.  Hoffman,  Vice-President;  S.  J.  Goode- 
nough, Secretary  and  Treasurer.  I  may  add  that 
the  book-keeper  and  other  employees  of  the  Con- 
cern were  directors  in  this  company.  The  meet- 
ings were  secretly  held  in  the  Book  Concern  dur- 
ing the  business  hours  of  the  day.  I  may  also  add 
that  I  presented  to  the  Book  Committee  tran- 
scripts of  the  records  of  the  company's  proceed- 
ings, which  showed  that  the  senior  Agent,  the 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE  ON  DUTY,   ETC.  25 

superintendent  of  tlie  bindery  and  printing  de- 
partments, and  the  book-keeper,  E.  Grant,  were 
appointed  a  committee  to  go  to  Canada  and  other 
places  to  attend  to  the  interests  of  the  company. 
The  gentleman  who  allowed  me  to  take  a  tran- 
script of  their  records  assured  me  that  they  had 
swindled  him  out  of  the  money  he  paid  for  stock 
in  the  company. 

I  name  also  as  further  evidence  of  the  "care 
that  was  pressing  upon  him,"  the  "Ridgewood 
Petroleum  Co.,"  located  in  Pennsylvania ;  capital 
stock  1500,000.00,  of  which  Goodenough  was 
corporator;  Dr.  Carlton,  H.  R.  Hoffman  and 
Elihu  Grant,  the  book-keeper,  were  likewise 
owners  in  this  company,  and  clerks  of  the  House 
were  directors. 

I  name  also  as  another  ponderous  "  care  that 
was  pressing  upon  him,"  the  "Crescent  Petrol- 
eum Co.,  of  New  York  and  Canada";  capital 
stock  11,200,000.00,  in  which  Goodenough  was 
"Chairman  of  the  Working  Committee."  In 
the  services  of  these  companies  he  travelled 
abroad  to  Pennsylvania,  Canada  and  other 
places.  There  were  other  magnificent  enter- 
prises and  speculations  that  were  doubtless  a 
heavy  burden  of  "  care  pressing  upon  "  the  hard- 
worked  Goodenough.  It  must  be  kept  in  mind, 
that  apart  from  their  frauds,  Goodenough  and 
Hoffman  were  entirely  dependent  on  their  sala- 
ries of  $2,000  to  each,  per  year. 

I  have  now  lying  before  me  a  transcript  from 
the  "wages  book"  of  the  printing  department, 


26  APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE    ON    DUTY,    ETC. 

wMcli  shows  that  Goodenough  was  absent  in 
Canada  and  Pennsylvania  six  times  in  one  year 
on  pay-day,  and  that  the  wages  were  paid  by 
Mr.  McNaughton,  one  of  the  employees  of  that 
department.  The  record  does  not  state  how 
long  he  was  absent  at  these  several  times  attend- 
ing to  the  "care  that  was  pressing  upon  him," 
nor  could  I  learn  how  often  he  was  absent  in 
the  interim  of  pay-days;  but  the  odds  and  ends 
of  such  immense  business  after  his  return  from 
these  distant  places,  must  have  greatly  increased 
the  "  care  that  was  pressing  upon  him."  Added 
to  all  these  was  the  care  of  his  family,  that  was 
living  at  Wilbraham,  Mass.,  where  he  was  in 
the  practice  of  going  every  three  or  four  weeks. 
How  a  man  with  such  multiplied  and  multiform 
"cares  pressing  upon  him"  could  give  any  at- 
tention to  the  duties  for  which  he  was  employed, 
I  leave  the  reader  of  this  narrative  to  judge. 
Nor  need  I  dwell  upon  the  most  palpable  and 
shameful  impropriety  of  the  Senior  Agent  of  the 
Book  Concern  being  in  league  with  the  employees 
of  the  establishment  in  gigantic  oil  companies, 
whose  charters  represented  one  million,  six 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  dollars.  To  my  poor 
judgment,  mismanagement  and  frauds  were  as 
inevitable  as  the  operation  of  the  law  of  cause 
and  effect.  The  Book  Committee,  however, 
seemed  to  think  differently,  hence,  a  majority  of 
the  Committee,  with  these  and  many  like  facts 
before  them,  endorsed  the  management  and  con- 
demned me. 


APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE    ON    DUTY,    ETC.  27 

Statement  IV. — That  J.  F.  Porter  was  an  ut- 
terly unfit  person  to  be  entrusted  with  the  pur- 
chase of  supplies  for  the  Book  Concern.  I  for- 
bear to  give  the  particulars  of  this  statement, 
which  would  be  an  astonishment  if  published.    * 

Statement  V. — That  as  soon  as  Porter's  mo- 
nopoly was  broken  up  by  the  removal  of  Groode- 
nough,  and  the  paper  was  purchased  by  myself, 
the  saving  on  the  average  issue  of  the  Christian 
Advocate  alone  averaged  $34.73  per  week,  or 
$1,805.44  for  the  year,  and  on  a  single  issue  of 
the  Sunday  School  Advocate  the  saving  was 
$45.73,  or  $548.76  per  year;  on  the  Good 
News,  $21.73,  or  $260.76  per  year;  on  the  Mis- 
sionary Advocate,  $58.70,  or  $704.40  per  year. 
For  all  these  periodicals,  except  the  last  named, 
the  same  quality  of  paper  was  purchased  from 
the  same  manufacturers  without  there  being 
any  fluctuation  in  the  market  prices.  The  proof 
of  this  statement  can  be  found  in  the  "order 
books"  of  the  printing  department,  and  in  my 
statement  marked  (7)  in  the  records  of  the  Book 
Committee. 

Porter's  profits  were  much  larger  on  book  and 
writing  papers  than  on  news-papers,  varying  all 
the  way  from  four  to  five  cents  per  pound.  Now 
when  it  is  taken  into  account  that  the  Book  Con- 
cern had  fifteen  printing  presses  almost  con- 
stantly running,  a  general  estimate  can  be  form- 
ed of  what  a  vast  saving  could  have  been  on  all 
the  publications  of  the  House  during  the  Goode- 
nough-Porter   reign.    The    entire   aggregate    of 


*  In  view  of  the  constant  denials  I  give  this  fact.  Not  long 
before  this  he  had  been  pardoned  out  of  the  Illinois  Peniten- 
tiary. 


28  APPOINTMENT— ENTRANCE    ON    DUTY,    ETC. 

the  amount  of  purchases  during  Porter's  mo- 
nopoly was  about  |700,000.  I  have  never  had  a 
doubt  that  if  my  investigations  had  not  been  un- 
warrantably stopped  by  the  Book  Committee,  I 
should  have  found  abundant  evidence,  and  the 
reader  will  think  so  too  when  I  am  through  with 
this  narrative,  that  large  quantities  of  paper 
were  paid  for  by  the  Concern  that  were  never 
received. 

I  may  add  that  on  the  arrival  at  the  Book 
Concern  of  the  first  lot  of  paper  purchased  by  me, 
I  called  for  the  scales  to  have  it  weighed,  but  was 
informed  that  the  practice  had  been  to  receive 
it  without  weighing.  After  some  search,  an  old 
pair  of  scales  was  found  in  an  out  of  the  way 
place  which  were  not  in  balance  by  some  seven 
or  eight  pounds.  I  reported  these  facts  to  Dr. 
Carlton,  and  a  pair  of  Fairbanks  scales  was 
ordered.  Such,  in  part,  were  matters  in  the 
printing  department,  relating  to  the  purchase  of 
paper  alone,  all  of  which  were  fully  presented  to 
the  Book  Committee  for  their  consideration,  and 
as  will  be  seen,  a  majority  persistently  ignored. 


THE  BINDERY. 

INVESTIGATION  AND  ITS  RESULTS. 

After  Goodenough  left  tlie  Book  Concern,  I 
again  reminded  Dr.  Carlton  liow  often  I  had 
talked  with  him  about  the  loose  methods  of  con- 
ducting the  business  of  the  House,  and  expressed 
apprehensions  that,  if  possible,  a  worse  state  of 
things  existed  in  the  bindery  than  had  been 
found  in  the  printing  department,  and  urged  him 
to  examine,  without  delay,  offering  to  render  any 
assistance  in  my  power,  but  my  talk  availed  noth- 
ing. 

H.  R.  Hoffman  was  then  Superintendent  of  the 
Bindery,  and  had  held  that  position  for  about 
seventeen  years.  He  lived  meanwhile  in  Brook- 
lyn, in  an  expensive  style — ^keeping  fine  horses  at 
livery,  one  of  which  had  recently  died,  being 
valued  at  |2,000.  It  was  his  custom  to  take  his 
family  to  Saratoga  Springs  every  Summer.  I 
named  these  matters  to  Dr.  Carlton,  who  replied : 
"Mr.  Hoffman  makes  money  speculating  in 
stocks."  I  asked  him  if  he  ever  lost  any,  and 
suggested  that  a  speculator  in  stocks  was  not  a 
safe  person  to  be  Superintendent  of  the  Bindery, 
and  have  the  charge  of  its  large  purchases  of 
merchandise,  and  the  payment  of  the  wages. 

In  the  month  of  August,  1868,  I  had  occasion 
to  see  Mr.  Hoffman  about  a  special  matter  of 

29 


30  THE    BINDERY. 

work,  and  was  informed  tliat  lie  liad  gone  with 
liis  family  to  Saratoga  Springs.  I  asked  Dr. 
Carlton  if  he  had  gone  with  his  permission?  He 
said  he  had  not.  I  proposed  to  discharge  him  on 
his  return.  Dr.  Carlton  objected,  and  said  that' 
we  could  not  get  along  without  him.  I  replied 
that  he  spent  only  two  or  three  hours  per  day  in 
the  House,  and  so  far  as  I  could  see,  was  of  very 
little  account.    Dr.  Carlton  thought  differently. 

HOFFMAN'S    SALARY. 

Dr.  Carlton  had  previously  informed  me  that 
Hoffman's  salary  was  |2,000  per  year,  nothing 
being  said  of  perquisites.  Having  learned  that 
there  was  no  account  of  gold  imperfections,  and 
gold  sweepings,  I  brought  the  matter  to  Dr.  Carl- 
ton's attention,  and  he  replied:  "Mr.  Hoffman 
is  allowed  these  as  a  part  of  his  salary,  and 
they  amount  to  only  two  hundred  or  three 
hundred  dollars  a  year."  I  replied, "  they  amount 
to  more  than  five  times  that  sum."  I  also  found 
that  Hoffman  was  entered  in  the  wages  book  as 
having  drawn  two  hundred  dollars  per  year  in 
addition  to  the  above  amounts  of  salary  and  per- 
quisites, and  named  it  to  Dr.  Carlton,  who  said 
that  "  that  was  by  agreement  with  the  Agents." 
I  also  found  that  there  was  no  report  of  waste 
paper,  paper  shavings,  binders'  board  cuttings, 
and  leather  clippings,  which  brought  a  high  price 
in  those  years,  and  ought  to  have  yielded  from 
$G,000  to  18,000  per  year.  I  give  only  one  sam- 
ple out  of  many  of  Hoffman's  sales  of  waste 


THE    BINDERY.  31 

paper  and  paper  shavings  as  found  in  Ms  "  mem- 
oranda" book:  "  Central  Lake  Mills,  5,143  pounds 
mixed  shavings,  7i,  |385.73."  After  careful  in- 
quiry among  large  manufacturers  of  paper,  I 
failed  to  learn  that  such  mills  existed.  The  entry 
in  the  cashier's  cash  book  is  "Sept.  30,  |385— 
Hoffman's  salary."  He  was  discharged  August 
22,  a  month  before.  The  article  was  sold  to  Kus- 
sel  &  O'Connel,  New  York,  and  I  have  from  them 
a  statement  of  numerous  purchases  of  similar 
articles.  The  canceled  checks  in  my  possession 
from  them,  show  sales  of  |600  worth  at  one 
time.  I  named  that  to  Dr.  Carlton,  who 
said  he  "supposed  Mr.  Hoffman  exchanged 
them  for  other  stock."  I  have  several  of  the 
checks  by  which  dealers  paid  Hoffman  for 
some  of  those  articles.  I  also  found  that  through 
a  series  of  years  Hoffman  had  been  in  the  prac- 
tice of  sending  to  the  Cashier  mere  slips  of  paper 
"  for  miscellaneous  articles,"  upon  which  he  drew 
from  |500  to  |600  annually;  also  similar  slips  of 
paper  for  "Bindery  purposes"  from  which  he 
drew  from  |10  to  |100  at  a  time.  The  proof  of 
this  can  be  furnished  by  persons  now  employed 
in  the  Bindery.  No  vouchers  for  these  were  pre- 
sented. 

I  also  found  numerous  bills  for  black  velvet  of 
a  very  superior  quality,  purchased  by  Mr.  Hoff- 
man, at  |16,  |18  and  |20  per  yard.  I  also  found 
bills  for  colored  velvet,  at  |7  and  $9  per  yard, 
such  as  is  used  by  book  binders.  "  I  learned  from 
Mr.  W.  T.  Andrus,  who  had  served  as  Hoffman's 


32  THE    BINDERY. 

foreman  some  ten  years,  and  who,  on  Hoffman's 
removal,  was  appointed,  and  is  now  Superinten- 
dent of  the  Bindery,  and  from  other  workmen  in 
the  Bindery,  that  they  had  seen  no  books  issued 
from  the  Bindery  in  black  velvet.  I  showed  the 
bills  to  Dr.  Carlton  and  the  clerks  in  the  store, 
who  said  they  had  never  seen  books  so  bound. 

Having  from  week  to  week  laid  before  my  col- 
league the  evidence  of  Hoffman's  frauds  without 
inducing  him  to  act,  I  at  last  told  him  that  if 
Hoffman  was  not  discharged  I  would  leave  the 
House,  and  added,  that  if  he  believed  him  inno- 
cent he  ought  to  protect  him,  as  I  certainly  would 
in  the  case  of  any  man  whom  I  believed  wrongiy 
accused.  He  replied,  "  Mr.  Hoffman  is  employed 
by  the  year,  and  has  six  months  to  serve."  I 
answered,  "We  must  get  rid  of  him  first,  and 
then  talk  of  the  time  he  has  to  serve — I  will  not 
stay  here  with  a  man  who  is  robbing  the  House." 
He  then  proposed  that  we  have  an  interview 
with  Hoffman,  and  said  "  you  had  better  be  care- 
ful, he  is  a  desperate  man  and  a  great  fighter." 
In  the  interview,  I  enumerated  to  Hoffman  sev- 
eral of  his  most  glaring  frauds,  all  of  which  he 
denied,  of  course.  I  then  said  to  Dr.  Carlton, 
"You  are  the  Senior  Agent  and  must  speak.  If 
you  believe  this  man  innocent  you  ought  to  pro- 
tect him."  He  replied,  "I  do  not  suppose  Mr. 
Hoffman  wishes  to  stay  if  you  do  not  want  him." 
Addressing  me,  Hoffman  said,  "I  suppose  you 
have  seen  my  note  to  the  Agents."  I  answered 
him  that  I  had  not.    Dr.  Carlton  then  produced 


THE    BINDERY.  33 

the  following,  which  Hoffman  had  given  him  the 
day  before  the  interview,  but  he  had  said  nothing 
to  me  about  it: 

New  York,  August  22,  1869. 
Messrs.    Carlton    and   Lanahan: 

Gentlemen.— I  hereby  resign  my  position  as  Superintendent 
of  the  Bindeiy  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  to  take  effect 
the  first  of  September,  or  at  such  other  date  as  you  may 
desire.  Yours  truly, 

H.  li.  HOFFMAN. 

Amazed  at  this  new  phase  of  my  colleague's 
conduct,  addressing  him,  I  said,  "Dr.  Oarltou, 
so  far  as  I  am  concerned  it  must  take  effect 
here  and  now.  I  was  deceived  once  by  a 
resignation  to  'take  effect'  (referring  to  Goode- 
nough),  and  shall  not  be  deceived  again."  He 
made  no  reply,  but  the  "desperate  man  and 
great  fighter"  slunk  away  to  his  room  in  the 
Bindery,  where  one  of  the  workmen  saw  him 
destroy  an  account  book  and  vouchers.  I  con- 
tinued my  investigations  and  soon  discovered 
that  the  frauds  in  the  Bindery  had  connection 
with  the  account  books  of  the  Agents'  office,  and 
through  the  inventories  as  shown  in  the  further 
statements  of  this  narrative. 

CHRISTIAN  AUVOCxVTE  AND  ITS  SUPPLEMENT. 

Finding  that  the  many  editorial  denials  of 
mismanagement  and  fraud  failed  to  satisfy  the 
Church,  March  17,  1870,  a  supplement  to  the 
Christian  Advocate  was  published,  which  pro- 
fessed to  give  a  digest  and  explanations  of  the 


34  THE    BINDERY. 

testimony  taken  before  the  Book  Committee. 
Dr.  Carlton  and  the  Agents  of  the  Western  Book 
Concern,  Messrs.  Hitchcock  and  Walden,  had  the 
Supplement  published  in  all  the  official  papers, 
and  thus  more  than  a  hundred  thousand  copies 
were  sent  throughout  the  Church.  The  materials 
of  the  Supplement  were  collected  and  arranged 
by  W.  H.  De  Buy  and  Dr.  Carlton.  When  Dr. 
Curry,  the  editor  of  the  Advocate,  was  asked 
before  the  Committee  where  the  materials  for 
the  Supplement  were  gotten,  he  refused  to  an- 
swer, and  said,  "An  editor  is  not  bound  to  tell 
where  he  gets  information;  all  the  materials 
passed  through  my  hands,  and  I  am  responsible 
for  the  statements  of  the  Supplement." 

Two  members  of  the  Book  Committee  pub- 
lished in  the  Christian  Advocate,  the  following 
card: 

A  CARD. 

To  the  members  of  the  several  annual  conferences  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church: 

Dear  Brethren: — We  respectfully  ask  you  to  suspend 
judgment  on  the  matters  brought  to  your  notice  by  a  docu- 
ment which  has  been  extensively  circulated  as  a  "  Supple- 
ment "  to  several  of  the  official  papers  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
till  an  investigation,  which  has  been  ordered  by  the  Book 
Comiuittee,  in  accordance  with  the  request  contained  in 
the  following  paper,  has  been  made. 

May   20,    1870.  H.   SLICER, 

J.  PIKE. 

The  following  was  also  presented  to  the  Com- 
mittee, to  which  they  gave  no  attention  what- 
ever: 


THE    BINDBBT.  35 

The  undersigned,  members  of  tlie  Book  Committee,  feel 
it  their  duty  to  call  the  attention  of  that  CJommittee  to  the 
fact  that  many  false  statements  and  misrepresentations, 
calculated  to  mislead  and  deceive  the  ministers  and  mem- 
bers of  the  M.  E.  Church  concerning  the  "  Book-Room 
troubles,"  are  contained  in  a  document  called  "  The 
Christian  Advocate  Supplement,"  which  has  been  widely 
circulated  over  all  the  land,  and  we  respectfully  ask  of  the 
Book  Committee  the  appointment  of  a  sub-Committee  of 
their  number  to  inquire  and  report, 

First.  Concerning  the  truth  of  the  charges  herein  con- 
tained. 

Second.  What  General  Conference  Editors  and  Agents 
are  responsible  for  originating  and  publishing  the  afore- 
mentioned   "  Supplement." 

Third.  What  action  ought  the  Book  Committee  to  take 
in  reference  to  the  official  conduct  of  the  parties  responsi- 
ble for  its  issue?  L.  M.  VERNON, 

J.  PIKE, 
H.  SLICER. 

The  character  of  the  paper  can  be  inferred 
from  a  few  selections  I  shall  make.  Of  the  pur- 
chase of  black  velvet  by  Hoffman,  the  Advocate 
and  Supplement  said: 

"Among  the  alleged  cases  of  misappropriation  of  property 
in  the  Bindery  were  two  lots  of  black  velvet,  amounting  to 
nearly  $150.  Upon  inquiry  nobody  had  any  recollection  of 
books  bound  in  that  material  ever  having  been  in  the  house. 
Suspicion  had  even  detected  its  presence  elsewhere,  and  in 
another  use  than  binding  books.  The  case  for  some  time 
had  really  a  bad  look.  But  one  day  there  appeared  among 
the  mail  matter  received  by  the  Agents,  coming  from  Ver- 
mont, a  little  square  package  which  proved  to  be  a  small 
sized  Methodist  Hymn  Book,  bearing  the  imprint  of  the 
Methodist  Book  Concern,  and  bound  in  black  velvet  Other 
hymn-books,  and  also  a  laxge  Bible  bound  in  the  same 
material  were  heard  of  in  various  parts  of  the  countiy." 

But  for  the  gravity  of  the  matter,  the  above 
would  be  amusing  and  ridiculous.    If  "  the  little 


36  THE    BINDERY. 

square  package"  was  "received  by  the  Agents," 
why  was  I  not  allowed  to  see  it  before  it  was 
paraded  before  the  Committee?  As  Dr.  Carlton 
failed  to  give  any  particulars  in  regard  to  the 
party  from  whom  "the  little  square  package" 
came,  the  Editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate  or 
his  assistant,  Avho  got  up  the  Supx)lement,  might 
at  least  have  given  his  numerous  rei^iders  the 
name  and  post  office  address  of  the  person  in 
"Vermont,"  who  sent  the  "little  square  pack- 
age." They  might  also  have  specified  at  least 
one  of  the  "  different  parts  of  the  country  "  where 
"  a  large  Bible  and  other  hymn  books  so  bound  " 
were,  or  at  least,  hoAV  the  information  came  to 
them.  I  had  not  known  of  the  "  tAvo  lots  of  black 
velvet,  amounting  to  nearly  |150,"  until  it  was 
brought  out  in  the  above  remarkable  statement 
of  the  Supplement.  My  examination  had  not  yet 
gone  as  far  back  as  "twelve  or  fifteen  years" 
from  the  date  of  the  Advocate's  publication  of 
it.  But  from  the  following,  which  is  a  copy  of 
one  of  the  numerous  bills  for  black  velvet,  it 
appears  that  the  article  had  been  purchased 
within  less  than  fifteen  months  of  the  time  I 
brought  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  the  Com- 
mittee. I  give  the  date  and  number  of  the 
voucher,  and  name  of  the  firm  from  which  the 
purchase  w^as  made: 

No.   of  Voucher.  114.  New  York,  October  28,  isas. 

Carlton  and  Lanahan: 

Bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor,  6  yards  of  Black  Velvet,  $16— 
$96.00. 

Endorsed,   "  H.   R.   H." 


THE    BINDERY.  37 

The  above  purchase  was  not  "  twelve  or  fifteen 
years  from  the  date  of  the  Supplement,  March  17, 
1870,"  nor  was  it  fifteen  months. 

Thus,  from  the  Advocate's  own  statement, 
Hoffman  had  been  purchasing  at  the  expense  of 
the  Book  Concern,  this  costly  article  "from 
twelve  to  fifteen  years,"  and  no  employee  of  the 
Concern  had  ever  seen  a  book  so  bound.  When 
men  start  out  with  the  delibei-ate  purpose  of  per- 
verting the  truth,  they  are  apt  to  uncover  the 
badness  of  their  own  cause.  Had  I  made  a  thor- 
ough examination  I  doubt  not  I  should  have 
found  very  many  such  purchases  by  Hoffman, 
but  I  had  supposed  that  one  clear  case  of  fraud 
would  satisfy  the  Committee.  I  was  greatly 
mistaken. 

When  Hoffman  was  questioned  before  the 
Book  Committee,  his  only  explanation  was  that 
"  the  black  velvet  was  used  to  cover  clerks'  desks." 
A  costly  covering  for  clerks'  desks.  If  the  Com- 
mittee had  had  the  least  desire  to  have  confir- 
mation of  my  statements,  they  would  have  asked 
to  see  the  "  clerks'  desks  "  covered  with  the  most 
costly  velvet  that  the  market  affords,  but  they 
did  not  do  this,  and  it  was  apparent  even  at  their 
first  meeting  that  some  of  the  Committee  were 
unwilling  listeners  to  my  narrative,  and  that 
unwillingness  grew  from  day  to  day,  and  from 
month  to  month,  through  at  least  two  dark  years, 
until  it  culminated  in  the  formation  of  a  power- 
ful combination  to  effect  my  removal  from  office. 

No  contradiction  of  my  statement  of  the  im- 


38  THE    BINDERY. 

proper  use  of  black  velvet  was  made  at  the  meet- 
ing of  the  Committee  in  November,  but  three 
months  after  at  the  meeting  in  February,  Dr. 
Carlton  produced  a  newly  bound  hymn  book  in 
black  velvet  which  he  said  came  to  him  from  Ver- 
mont. The  Committee  did  not  ask  him  to  give 
the  name  of  the  person  who  sent  it,  nor  the 
place  in  Vermont  from  which  he  had  said  it  came, 
nor  did  they  ask  for  evidence  that  such  an  edi- 
tion had  ever  been  issued  by  the  House.  Oh! 
no,  he  must  not  be  suspected  of  trickery!  The 
Committee  was  always  in  the  most  susceptible 
mood  when  he  unravelled  what  needed  no  un- 
ravelling. 

Hoffman  was  quite  a  liberal  purchaser  of  other 
articles  of  dry  goods  than  black  velvet,  which  I 
was  assured  by  the  workmen,  especially  Mr. 
Andrus,  the  foreman,  were  not  used  in  the 
Bindery,  such  as  silks  at  three  and  four  dollars  a 
yard;  also  linen,  cambrics  and  cotton  goods,  such 
as  are  used  for  bed  sheets  and  shirts.  The  fol- 
lowing copies  of  bills  paid  by  the  cashier  are  only 
a  few  samples.  I  give  the  dates,  names  of  dealers 
from  whom  purchased,  number  of  voucher,  quan- 
tity and  amounts  paid.  Some  of  the  bills  were 
in  Hoffman's  name: 

Voucher  No.  241.  November  3,  1864. 

Arnold  &  Constable: 

Five  yai-ds  of  Black  Velvet,  at  $16.00 $80.00 

Four  yards  plain,   at  $9.71 38.84 

Eight   yards   plain,   at   $9.75 $75.60 

Total    $194.44 


THE    BINDERY.  39 

Voucher  No.  52.                    April  17,  18—  (year  not  given.) 
H.  R.  Hoffman  bought  of  George  Banks: 
Twenty  yards  of  Muslin,  at  25  cents $5.00 

Voucher  No.  54. 
Thirty  yards  of  Cambric,  at  25  cents $7.50 

Voucher  No.  55. 
Thirty  yards  of  Muslin,  at  25  cents $27.50 

The  above  three  separate  bills  were  in  Hoff- 
man's name,  but  paid  by  the  Cashier. 

Voucher  No.  185. 
Mrs.  H.  R.  Hoffman,  bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor,  261  Grand 
Street: 

Forty  yards  of  Muslin,  at  45  cents $18.00 

H.  R.  H. 

Voucher  No.  193.  November  23,  1865. 

Messrs.   Aitkin  &  Miller,   bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor,  467 

Broadway: 
Fifteen  yards  Silk,  at  $3.50 $52.50 

5  per  cent,  off   2.62 


$49.88 


Voucher  No.  26.                                        January  14,  1867. 
H.  R.  Hoffman,  bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor,  261  Grand  St. 
Twenty  yards  Canton,  at  25  cents $5.00 

Voucher  No.  73.                                               May  28,  1867. 
Mr.  Hoffman,  bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor: 
Twelve  yards  Silk,  at  $3.00 $36.00 

Voucher  No.  73.                                                 July  26,  1867. 
Bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor: 
Eighty-one  and  one-half  yards  Muslin,  at  30  cents.  .$26.55 
Ninety-six  yards  Muslin,  at  30  cents 28.95 

Total    $55.50 


40  THE    BINDERY. 

Voucher  No.  125.  October  7,  1867. 

Bought   of  Lord   &   Taylor,   467  Broadway,  Mr.   Hoffman, 
for  Carlton  and  Porter: 

Thirty  yards  Linen,  at  77^^  cents $23.25 

Eighty-seven   yards   Muslin,   at  28   cents 24.50 

Forty-one  and  one-half  yards  Canton,  at  42^/^  cents.  .  17.64 

Total     $64.43 

264|  yards  of  muslin  in  a  little  more  than  two 

months. 

Voucher  No.  140.                                      November  4,  1867. 
Bought  of  Arnold  &  Constable: 
Three  and  one-half  yds.  Black  Velvet,  at  $20 $70.00 

There  were  other  articles  of  dry  goods  in  this 
bill  which  I  did  not  copy,  all  amounting  to  |180.- 
50.  See  the  voucher  in  the  Book  Concern.  If 
it  cannot  be  found,  see  the  cash  book  of  the  above 
date  for  the  amount  paid. 

Voucher  No.  35.  March  18,  1868. 

Bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor: 
Eighty-one  and  one-third  yards  Muslin,  at  25  cents.  .$22.13 

Voucher  No.  42.  April  9,  1868. 

Forty-five  and  three-quarter  yds.  Muslin,  at  19^^  cents,  $8.93 

These  bills  show  the  purchase  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty-six  yards  of  muslin  in  twenty-one 
days.  The  four  pieces  noticed  further  on  in  this 
narrative,  two  of  which  were  sent  to  Hoffman's 
house  in  Brooldyn,  and  two  to  a  house  on  West 
27th  Street,  New  York,  and  the  six  pieces  noticed 
in  the  sub-committee's  report,  make  his  purchases 
of  that  article  more  than  a  thousand  yards  in 
one  year.  No  wonder  that  he  could  sell  dry 
goods  to  the  employees,  supply  his  own  family, 
and  make  presents  to  others. 


THE    BINDERY.  41 

Voucher  No.   107.                                       October  13,  1868. 
Carlton  and  Lanahan,  bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor: 
Thirty-three  yards  Silk,  at  $3 $99.00 

Voucher  No.  88. 
R.  H.  Hoffman,  bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor: 
Three  yards  Linen,  at  70  cents $2.10 

Voucher  No.  119  (No  date.) 
Bought  of  Lord  &  Taylor: 
Twelve  yards  Silk,   at  $3.50 $42.00 

I  was  assured  by  the  foreman  and  his  men 
that  this  quantity  and  quality  of  silk  was  never 
used  in  the  bindery. 

I  ascertained  that  Hoffman  during-  this  time 
was  selling  dry  goods  to  employees  of  the  Bind- 
ery. Some  who  had  knowledge  of  this  are  now 
employed  in  that  department  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern, and  will  testify  to  the  fact  if  questioned. 
He  was  also  known  to  send  such  articles  to  his 
own  house  in  Brooklyn,  and  to  a  house  on 
West  27th  Street,  New  York.  His  foreman, 
Mr.  W.  T.  Andrus,  specified  before  the  Com- 
mittee four  pieces  of  muslin  which  came  to 
the  Bindery  at  one  time  during  the  previous 
month  of  March,  two  of  which  Hoffman  sent  to 
his  house  in  Brooldyn,  and  two  to  the  house  on 
West  27th  Street,  No.  132. 

In  my  first  report  to  the  Book  Committee,  I 
stated  that  Hoffman  kept  in  his  employ  in  the 
Binder}^  a  woman  of  bad  character,  and  offered 
to  furnish  the  proof,  but  the  offer  was  not  ac- 
cepted. I  left  it  out  of  the  printed  synopsis 
which  I  furnished  the  Committee  to  avoid  giving 
publicity    to    such    an    appalling    condition    of 


42  THE    BINDERY. 

things.    Only  a  few  copies  of  tlie  synopsis  were 

printed,  and  those  to  facilitate  the  examination 

of  my  charges.    The  Advocate  kept  denouncing 

it  as  "  the  infamous  fly-sheet."    The  Supplement, 

referring  to  the  above  offensive  matter,  said: 

"We  are  pleased  to  see  that  Dr.  Lanahan  omits  this 
from  his  second  edition  of  the  Fly-sheet.  We  are  glad  of 
it,  not  only  because  it  avoids  a  very  objectionable  utter- 
ance, but  also  and  especially  it  indicates  a  returning  sense 
of  the  demands  of  the  proprieties  of  life." 

As  the  Advocate  thus  proclaimed  to  the  world 

what  I,  in  the  discharge  of  my  official  duty  as  one 

of  the  Agents,  communicated  to  the  Committee 

in  their  private  meeting,  I  will  now  state  a  more 

specific  case.    I  addressed  a  note  to  Mr.  J,  A. 

Kennedy,   Superintendent  of  Police,  requesting 

him  to  inform  me  as  to  the  occupant  of  the  house 

on  West  27th  Street,  No.  132,  above  referred  to, 

and  received  the  following  reply: 

New  York,  September  25,  1869. 
Rev.  J.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— In  reply  to  your  inquiry  in  regard  to  the 
premises  No.  132  W.  27th  Street,  I  have  to  inform  you  that 
it  is  occupied  by  a  woman  known  as  Kate  Heath,  who 
keeps  a  house  of  prostitution,  according  to  my  books. 

Respectfully,  J.  A.  KENNEDY, 
Supt.  of  Polioe. 

The  Advocate's  statement  about  the  "second 
edition"  of  what  it  called  my  "fly-sheet,"  is  in 
keeping  with  its  oft  repeated  perversions  of  the 
truth.  There  was  no  "  second  edition."  It  was  a 
synopsis  of  the  first  report  I  made  to  the  Com- 
mittee by  its  order,  and  given  in  a  printed  form 
to  each  member,  hoping  thus  to  induce  them  to 
examine  it. 


ANOTHER  CLASS   OF   FRAUDS. 

Hoffman  did  work  for  outside  parties,  received 
and  kept  tlie  money.  I  can  give  the  names  and 
particulars.  He  also  sold  the  following  tools  as 
if  they  were  his  private  property,  and  pocketed 
the  money:  One  gouging  machine,  one  backing 
machine,  one  punching  machine,  twenty  gilding 
presses,  twenty-six  gilding  stands,  dies,  etc.,  etc. 
I  can  furnish  all  tlie  particulars  as  to  the  pur- 
chasers, giving  the  streets  on  which  they  were 
located,  and  the  numbers  of  their  houses.  The 
above  cost  the  Book  Concern  more  than  |1,000. 
They  were  named  in  the  inventory  of  1867,  and 
not  in  the  inventory  of  1868. 

He  also  gave  as  presents  to  his  friends  elegant 
illuminated  Bibles,  put  up  in  the  most  costly 
style — the  finest  that  could  be  produced  by  the 
House.  I  found  out  four  given  away  at  one  time, 
a  few  weeks  before  he  was  discharged,  and  got 
the  names  of  the  parties  to  whom  he  gave  them. 
One  was  presented  to  William  M.  Tweed,  a  name 
famous  in  New  York,  and  another  to  a  member 
of  the  Book  Committee.  What  is  to  be  thought 
of  members  of  a  Committee  receiving  presents 
from  persons  whose  accounts  and  conduct  they 
were  investigating  ?  Solomon  says,  "  a  gift 
taketh  away  the  heart." 

43 


44  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

The  Supplement  explained  tlie  above  thus: 

"  The  stoiy  of  the  illuminated  bibles  is  a  short  and  plain 
one.  By  tlie  etiquette  of  the  trade,  the  Superintendent  is 
entitled  to  a  copy  of  every  book  published.  INIr.  Hoffman 
commuted  this  perquisite  with  the  Agents  and  accepted 
instead  of  the  books  issued  during  his  seventeen  years  of 
superintendency  the  four  bibles." 

Did  that  "etiquette"  prevail  in  other  houses? 
According  to  the  above,  Mr.  Hoffman  must  have 
been  a  very  generous  man  to  relinquish  seventeen 
years  of  "  perquisites "  for  four  illuminated 
bibles — all  given  away  at  one  time,  clandestinely 
too,  for  it  was  concealed  from  me.  As  I  was  one 
of  the  Agents  at  the  time  it  was  strange  that  I 
lieiird  not  of  that  "etiquette." 


FRAUDS  IN  LEATHER. 

I  finally  commenced  an  examination  of  the 
purchase  of  leather,  and  soon  had  reason  to 
know  that  my  first  apprehensions  were  more 
than  realized,  and  that  Hoffman's  frauds  were 
absolutely  enormous.  I,  therefore,  determined 
to  ascertain  as  nearly  as  possible  the  extent 
of  his  frauds  in  that  one  article,  during*  the 
last  eighteen  months  of  his  employment, 
namely,  from  December  1,  18(37,  the  close 
of  the  fiscal  year,  to  July  31,  1869.  He  was  dis- 
charged August  22,  18C9,  but  made  no  purchases 
in  that  month,  because  he  knew  I  was  watching 
him. 

For  the  above  purpose  I  employed  three  mas- 
ter binders  to  estimate  the  amount  of  leather  of 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  45 

different  kinds  used  in  tlie  above  specified  time — 
twenty  months — ^]Messrs.  W.  Matthews,  of  the 
publishing  house  of  Messrs.  Daniel  Appleton  & 
Co.,  W.  M.  Miller,  of  the  Bible  House  and  W.  T. 
Andrus,  of  the  15ook  Concern.  From  the  Bind- 
ery records  I  gave  these  gentlemen  the  number 
and  sizes  of  the  books  that  had  been  bound;  the 
patterns  from  which  we  cut,  and  average  size 
skins  of  the  different  kinds  of  leather  that  had 
been  used-.  They  acted  independently  of  each 
other.  Mr.  Andrus  counted  the  pieces;  hence 
his  estimate  was  more  exact  than  that  of  the 
other  tw^o.  The  following  is  the  result  of  each 
estimate.  Of  course  the  estimates  could  not  be 
exact,  but  approximate  the  amount.  The  count 
is  by  dozens: 

Morocco.  Skivers.  Sheep.  Calf. 

Matthews   203  770  194  11 

Miller 2G4  820  198  12 

Andrus    260  720  217  10 

787  2310  609  33 

Total 787  Dozens  of  Morocco. 

2310         "         '.'    Skivers. 

609         "         "    Sheep. 

33         "         "    Calf. 

This  aggregate  divided  by  3)3739 

Makes  the  amount  used.  .. .    1246%  dozens. 
1  then  got: 

1.  The  number  of  dozens  on  hand  as  per  inventoiy, 
December  1,  1867 1111  doz. 

2.  The  number  of  dozens  purchased  from  Dec.  1, 

1867  to  July  31,  1869 2642      " 

The  aggregate  shows  under  Hoffman's  control 
in  these  20  months  3753  doz. 

3.  Deduct  from  the  above  amount  used  as  per 
estimate   of    Matthews,    Miller   and    Andrus.    12461/^  " 

^5061/3  " 


4G  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

4.    Deduct  also  amount  on  hand  at  end  of  Hofif- 

man's  service   750  doz. 

and  it  leaves  unaccounted  for  when  Hoff- 
man  was   discharged    1756%  " 

This  leather  cost  the  Book  Concern $26,353.57 

To  this,    add   amount  paid   for   *'  shaving 

and  finishing,"    1,816.15 

$28,169.72 

The  above  details,  I  accompanied  with  the 
number  of  each  voucher,  from  whom  purchased, 
and  the  cost  of  the  different  classes  of  leather 
purchased.  The  purchases  were  made  from  L. 
T.  Lutkins,  Campbell  &  Armstrong,  Griffin  & 
Sons,  and  "Wm.  Black,"  if  there  was  such  a 
person.  As  I  failed  to  find  him,  or  to  learn  any 
thing  about  him,  I  doubted  his  existence  as  a 
dealer  in  leather.  He  may  have  been  another 
"George  Wilson,"  or  "Abram  Nelson,"  to  be 
named  further  on  in  this  narrative,  who  sold 
leather  furnished  by  Hoffman.  The  other  was 
H.  Roys,  one  of  Hoffman's  especial  favorites,  who 
did  all  his  "shaving"  and  "finishing,"  and  sold 
him  "  Crust  Sheep,"  "  Sldns  in  Salt,"  and  the  like. 
At  least  the  Book  Concern  paid  for  such,  the  bills 
being  in  Roys',  name.  If  the  bills  for  these  pur- 
chases from  the  above  named  dealers  cannot  be 
found  in  the  Book  Concern,  I  can  furnish  copies 
of  them  all  which  can  be  verified  by  reference  to 
the  cash  book  of  the  House.  I  copied  them  to  be 
ready  for  any  emergency  because  I  discovered 
that  important  papers  were  being  spirited  away. 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  47 

WHAT  BECAME   OE   THE   UNACCOUNTED  FOB 
LEATHER? 

My  next  effort  was  to  ascertain  wliat  became 
of  the  Seventeen  Hundred  and  Fifty-six  Dozens. 
Upon  examination  I  found  tliat  some  of  tlie 
vouchers  were  duplicates,  and  that  the  House 
liad  paid  twice  for  the  same  article.  Thus  much 
paid  for  was  never  received.  Upon  further  in- 
quiry, I  ascertained  that  Hoffman  had  been  in 
the  practice  of  sending  from  the  House  large 
quantities  of  leather  that  were  not  returned. 

By  Mr.  Andrus  I  was  informed  that  Hoffman 
many  times  had  sent  from  the  Book  Concern 
large  quantities  of  morocco,  calf  and  sheep-skins, 
for  which  no  account  was  rendered.  He  specified 
141  dozens  of  sheep-skins  that  had  been  sent 
away  the  previous  Spring,  about  March,  1868, 
some  three  months  before  I  became  one  of  the 
Agents.  The  facts  in  this  case  were  very  specific. 
By  Hoffman's  order,  Mr.  Andrus  and  one  of 
the  porters  counted  the  skins.  Hoffman  then 
sent  the  porter  to  the  store  of  H.  Keys,  to 
say  to  him  "send  for  the  skins  immediately." 
Roys  being  absent,  his  salesman  and  book-keeper, 
Mr.  Jones,  sent  for  and  received  tliem,  and  the 
Book  Concern  received  no  credit  for  them  on 
Roys'  books.  The  same  day  Mr.  Jones  stated 
that  Roys  sold  120  dozens  of  the  skins  to  the 
respectable  house  of  Messrs.  Hurd  &  Houghton, 
New  York.  I  called  on  that  firm  and  they  cor- 
roborated Mr.   Jones'   statement.    So  confident 


48  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

was  Mr.  Jones  that  there  was  something  wrong 
in  this  affair,  tliat  he  made  a  note  of  it,  and  when 
the  Book  Concern  frauds  got  into  the  news- 
papers he  gave  that  note  to  me,  and  I  gave  it  to 
the  Book  Committee,  and  it  is  now,  or  ought  to 
be,  among  the  papers  of  tlie  Committee,  if  they 
are  in  existence.  Mr.  Jones  testified  before  the 
Book  Committee  to  the  above  facts.  He  also 
testified  that  Hoffman,  during  the  previous 
A\inter,  had  sent  to  Koys'  store  at  one  time  fifty 
dozens  of  morocco,  at  another  time  forty  dozens, 
and  at  another  time  sixty  dozens,  for  wliich  tlie 
Booli  Concern  received  no  credit  on  Roys'  bool?;s. 
Mr.  Jones  further  stated  to  the  Committee,  that 
he  was  willing  to  make  oath  to  the  above  facts. 
When  Mr.  Andrus  testified  before  the  Book  Com- 
mittee to  his  personal  knowledge  of  the  above 
counting  and  sending  away  of  the  leather,  he 
was  asked  why  he  did  not  report  it  to  the  Agents. 
He  replied,  "the  sending  away  of  leather  and 
other  articles  by  Mr.  Hoffman  was  a  frequent 
occurrence,  and  he  [Hoffman]  was  a  man  of  power 
in  the  Concern,  and  a  word  from  me  about  Mr. 
Hoffman  would  have  led  to  my  discharge."  The 
horrible  experience  through  which  I  was  forced 
to  pass  demonstrated  that  Mr.  Andrus  judged 
correctly. 

In  regard  to  the  one  hundred  and  forty-one 
dozens  of  sheep-skins,  Hoffman  told  three  dif- 
ferent stories.  To  Dr.  Carlton  and  myself  he 
said,  "they  were  sent  to  Newark,  N.  J.,  to  be 
shaved,"  and  that  they  had  been  "  sent  back  at 


ANOTHER    CLASS    OF    FBAXJDS.  49 

different  times."  I  asked  liini  if  he  had  any 
record  in  his  books  of  sending  them  and  of  their 
return?  He  replied,  "I  made  a  note  of  it  on  a 
slip  of  paper  which  I  destroyed."  I  asked  him 
if  he  destroyed  the  slip  of  paper  "at  different 
times  ? "  He  could  not  remember  !  When  he 
appeared  before  the  Sub-committee  and  was 
asked  by  Dr.  Pike,  why  the  Book  Concern  had  no 
bill  for  shaving  them,  he  said,  "his  friend  Roys 
shaved  them  for  nothing."  Several  weeks  after 
he  said  to  the  whole  Committee,  he  supposed 
Roys  charged  for  the  shaving  of  them  with  other 
stock. 

The  Advocate-Supplement  attempted  to  ex- 
plain the  above  matter  thus: 

Hoffman's  explanation  of  the  ease  is  that  he  found  the 
skins  too  thick  for  his  work,  and  therefore  sent  tliem  away 
to  be  shaved.  The  person  receiving  them  at  once  informed 
him  that  he  had  in  his  store  just  such  skins  as  he  (Hoff- 
man) desired,  and  that  he  would  exchange  those  thinner 
skins  for  Hoffman's  thicker,  and  save  expense  of  shaving 
the  latter.  That  offer  was  accepted,  and  the  skins  were 
brought  to  the  Book  Concern,  and  as  there  was  no  expense 
on  either  side,  no  charge  of  the  transaction  was  made.  The 
explanation  meets  all  the  requirements  of  the  case,  and 
gives  significance  to  all  the  facts  proved;  and  as  there  was 
no  proof  of  loss,  the  Committee  dismissed  the  case  as  prov- 
ing nothing. 

One  statement  in  the  above  is  true.  "The 
Committee  dismissed  the  case."  Yes,  "  dismissed 
the  case,"  notwithstanding  the  contradictory 
statements  of  Hoffman,  and  the  positive  knowl- 
edge of  those  who  testified  to  the  facts.    So  it 


50  ^        ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

was  all  through  the  monstrous  investigation  of 
the  Committee,  especially  at  their  second  meet- 
ing. One  of  the  Committee,  Eev.  Geo.  W.  Wood- 
ruff, went  so  far  as  to  declare  that  "  there  might 
have  been  139,  or  140  dozens,  in  that  case  the 
charge  of  fraud  is  not  proved." 

It  is  remarkable  that  Hoffman  through  several 
years  should  have  purchased  large  quantities  of 
leather  that  required  to  be  "shaved"  or  "fin- 
ished." It  would  be  interesting  to  know  what 
the  first  cost  of  the  unshaved  and  unfinished 
leather  was,  so  that  by  adding  the  cost  of  "  shav- 
ing," and  "  finishing  "  we  could  learn  the  net  cost 
per  dozen  to  the  Book  Concern.  But  of  these 
important  matters  no  record  was  made  ! 

The  following  samples  of  bills,  out  of  many 
others,  will  show  the  absolute  recklessness  prac- 
ticed in  the  payment  of  bills.  I  give  the  number 
of  voucher,  date  and  name  of  the  dealer,  so  that 
the  statements  can  be  verified  by  reference  to 
the  originals  or  to  the  cash  book: 

Voucher  No.  38.                                                                 1868. 
Carlton  and  Porter,  to  H.  Roys: 
Seventy  dozens  shaved  and  put  out $78.75 

[Put  out  where?  They  were  never  put  in  the  Book  Con- 
cern.] 

Voucher  No.  77.  1868. 

Carlton  and  Lanahan,  to  H.  Roys: 
For  finishing  83  dozens $332.00 

Voucher  No.  85.  1868. 

Carlton  and  Lanahan,  to  H.  Roys: 
For  finishing  92  dozens $506.00 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  51 

Voucher  No,  103.  1868. 

Oarlton  and  Lanahan,  to  H.  Roys: 
Shaving  and  finishing  100  dozens $525.00 

Voucher  No.  23.  1869. 

Oarlton  and  Lanahan: 
For  finishing  60  dozens $180.00 

Voucher  No.  40.  1869. 

Carlton  and  Lanahan,  to  H.  Roys: 
Finishing  40  dozens $194.40 

Add  to  the  above  the  141  dozens  which  the 
Supplement  said  "  were  too  thick  for  Hoffman's 
work,"  and  we  have  nearly  seven  hundred  dozens 
of  skins  that  had  to  be  "shaved  and  finished" 
after  they  had  been  purchased — all  in  less  than 
one  year!  A  tyro  in  business  ought  to  have 
known  that  all  such  bills  were  fabrications. 
However,  the  cashier  paid  them!  But  what  of 
the  following: 

Voucher  No.  16.                                               Jan.  18,  1864. 
Carlton  and  Porter,  bought  of  H.  Roys: 
Eighty-five  dozens  Crust  sheep,  at  $7.20 $612.00 

My  note  on  this  bill,  made  at  the  time  I  copied 
it  is  "  a  hard  looking  bill,  evidently  written  and 
endorsed  by  Hoffman  or  one  of  his  confederates." 
I  asked  book-binders  to  explain  "crust  sheep." 
They  smiled  and  said  it  was  beyond  their  knowl- 
edge.   But  what  of  the  following: 

Voucher  No.  121.  1868. 

Carlton  and  Lanahan,  to  H.  Roys: 
For  78  dozens  skins  in  salt $546.00 

Voucher  No.  13.  1869. 

Carlton  and  Lanahan,  to  H.  Roys: 
For  67  dozen  skins  in  salt $502.00 


52  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

Only  to  corroborate  what  I  knew,  I  inquired  of 
book-binders,  what  was  meant  by  "  skins  in  salt." 
They  stated  that  manufacturers  of  leather  some- 
times put  raw  skins  in  salt  to  keep  them  from 
spoiling  until  they  were  ready  to  put  them 
through  the  regular  process  of  tanning.  One 
master  book-binder  of  forty-years'  experience 
gave  me  the  following  in  writing :  "  Skins  in 
salt  means  that  after  the  wool  is  taken  off,  skins 
are  salted  down  to  keep  them  from  spoiling." 
So  far  as  I  knew,  the  Book  Concern  did  not  keep 
a  tannery. 

I  could  fill  pages  with  copies  of  such  fraudu- 
lent bills.  The  practice  was  to  pay  any  and 
every  kind  of  bills  endorsed  by  HoffmaD,  even 
though  written  and  endorsed  by  himself,  or  by 
one  of  his  several  confederates.  If  he  had  en- 
dorsed a  bill  for  a  hide  on  an  animal's  back,  I  see 
no  reason  why  it  might  not  have  been  paid  with 
others. 

After  quoting  the  following  from  my  report  to 
the  Book  Committee:  "Large  amounts  of  skins 
in  salt  were  paid  for,  but  never  used  in  the  Bind- 
ery," the  Advocate-Supplement  said:  "The  evi- 
dence offered  upon  the  charge  was  deemed  by  the 
Committee  entirely  insufficient  to  prove  any- 
thing. There  was  no  attempt  made  to  prove 
that  such  skins  had  been  sold  from  the  Book 
Concern." 

Well,  among  the  multitude  of  falsehoods 
crowded  into  that  Supplement,  the  above  short 
sentence   is    literally   true.    "No   attempt   was 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  53 

made"  because  "the  skins  in  salt"  were  never 
sent  to  the  Book  Concern.  If  they  had  been,  they 
would  have  attracted  the  attention  of  everybody 
in  the  Concern,  and  if  kept  there  long  out  of  salt, 
they  would  have  become  as  rotten  as  had  been 
the  management  of  the  Concern  for  more  than 
twelve  years. 

Continuing  my  investigation  of  Hoffman's 
thefts,  I  learned  that  forty  dozens  of  morocco  had 
been,  a  few  weeks  before,  exposed  for  sale  in  a 
tin  store,  No.  295i  Pearl  Street,  by  a  young  man 
named  Abram  M.  Nelson.  I  traced  the  sale  of  the 
leather  by  Nelson  to  the  respectable  firm  of 
Messrs.  Rockwell  &  Co.,  who  promptly  gave  me 
Nelson's  bill  and  receipt  for  the  money  they  paid 
him.  I  gave  the  bill  to  the  Book  Committee. 
The  following  is  a  copy: 

New  Yoi-k,  October  22,  1869. 
Messrs.  Rockwell  &  Co.: 
Bought  of  A.  Nelson,  Metal,  Tin  and  Lead,  295^^  Pearl 
Street. 

15  dozens  large  skins,  at  $25.00 $375.00 

19      "      small    skins,    at    23.00 437.00 

6      "      inferior  skins,  at  14.00 84.00 

$896.00 
Less  error  on  19  dozens,  at  $1.00  per  dozen 19.00 

$877.00 
Less  2  per  cent 17.54 

$859.46 
Received  payment,  A.  NELSON. 

Nelson  sacrificed  the  leather  because  he 
learned  that  the  theft  was  known. 


54  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

I  showed  the  above  receipted  bill  to  Dr.  Carl- 
ton and  gave  him  an  account  of  all  the  facts  I 
had  gotten  and  requested  him  to  say  nothing 
about  it  as  I  expected  to  gather  additional  facts 
in  regard  to  Hoffman's  robberies.  Greatly  to  my 
surprise,  I  learned  the  next  day  that  Hoffman 
was  informed  of  my  investigation  and  discovery. 

Up  to  that  time,  strange  as  Dr.  Carlton's  con- 
duct had  been,  I  had  not  suspected  him  of  great 
wrong,  but  now  I  felt  confident  that  he  had  in- 
formed Hoffman,  and  in  the  presence  of  Rev. 
James  Pike  and  two  other  members  of  the  Book 
Committee,  I  charged  him  with  it.  He  denied 
having  done  so;  I  insisted  that  he  had  as  I  had 
not  spoken  of  it  to  any  other  person.  He  still 
persisted  in  his  denial  and  I  persisted  in  reaffirm- 
ing my  belief.  He  at  last  said:  " I  met  Mr.  Hoff- 
man on  the  street."  I  felt  so  confident  that  there 
had  been  a  special  meeting  between  them  that  I 
replied:  "You  did  not  meet  him  on  the  street." 
No  doubt  suspecting  that  I  possessed  more  infor- 
mation than  I  really  had,  he  then  said:  "I  met 
him  at  Cortlandt  Street  Ferry."  I  then  said: 
"Yes,  at  Cortlandt  Street  Ferry — ^you  going  to 
your  home  in  Elizabeth,  New  Jersey,  and  Hoff- 
man coming  from  his  home  in  Brooklyn  several 
miles  in  an  opposite  direction  to  meet  you;  I 
charge  you  with  collusion."  After  an  interchange 
of  similar  assertions  by  me  and  denials  by  him, 
the  conversation  ended  and  I  saw  plainly  that  I 
had  a  more  important  person  than  Hoffman  to 
contend  with.    Within  an  hour  or  two  after  this 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  55 

sharp  interview,  Dr.  Carlton  kindly  invited  me 
to  go  out  to  a  lunch-room  and  dine  with  him. 
I  declined  the  invitation;  my  thoughts  were  on 
more  important  matters  than  dining. 

Pursuing  yet  further  my  investigations,  I 
received  the  following  letter  which  made  trans- 
parent Hoffman's  theft  of  the  forty  dozen  of 
morocco : 

New  York,  November  1,  1869. 
Mr.  J.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— Late  in  October  or  early  in  November,  1868, 
a  party  named  Nelson  called  upon  me  and  wished  to  sell  a 
quantity  of  leather.  To  my  inquiries  as  to  the  kind  of 
leather,  he  replied  that  he  did  not  know  what  it  was  except 
that  it  was  for  book-binders'  use.  I  called,  in  accordance 
with  his  wish,  at  No.  295%  Pearl  Street.  It  is  a  store  where 
tin  and  lead  are  sold.  The  leather  was  lying  covered  up  on 
the  floor  at  the  back  of  the  store.  I  examined  it,  and  saw 
at  once  that  it  was  morocco  of  the  finest  brand  that  comes 
to  this  market.  As  I  was  almost  the  only  importer  of  it, 
my  curiosity  was  excited,  and  I  walked  forward  to  him 
and  asked  various  questions  in  relation  to  it— whose  it  was 
—where  it  came  from— why  it  was  exposed  for  sale  in  a 
tin-store?  and  so  on.  To  all  of  which  questions  he  gave 
only  the  general  answer,  that  it  was  his— he  bought  it  of  a 
friend — he  did  not  know  where  it  came  from.  I  then  re- 
examined the  leather,  and,  accidentally  overturning  a 
bunch,  saw  my  own  private  mark  extending  over  a  foot  of 
space  of  every  one  of  them— thus,  18-4-16,  meaning  thirty- 
four  and  50-100,  the  two  outsides  being  dollars,  and  the 
centre  (4)  meaning  shillings.  Upon  this  I  immediately  spoke 
to  him  again,  and  told  him  he  would  certainly  get  into 
trouble  by  selling  that  morocco,  as  I  was  certain,  from  see- 
ing my  private  mark  upon  it,  that  it  was  on  the  market 
wrongfully.  He  said  he  knew  nothing  about  that;  he  had 
bought  it,  and  paid  $30  per  dozen  for  it,  and  he  was  going 
to  sell  it.  He  added  he  knew  it  was  worth  that,  for  he 
had  had  40  dozen  of  it  before,  and  could  get  40  dozen  more; 
but,  if  there  was  going  to  be  trouble,  he  would  rather  sell 


59  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

it  at  cost,  and  have  done  with  it.  I  then  left  him.  From 
circumstances  of  a  domestic  nature,  I  was  able  to  fix  the 
exact  date  of  the  importation  of  that  morocco;  and  upon 
going  bacli  to  the  store,  I  saw  at  once  it  was  one  of  two 
lots  sold  to  the  M.  B.  C.  and  the  A.  B.  S.  at  the  same  time. 
I  knew  it  was  not  the  A.  B.  S.  stock,  and  from  vai-ious 
things  that  had  come  to  me  from  different  sources,  I  was 
certain  that  it  came  from  the  M.  B.  O. 

I  thought  it  was  my  plain  duty  to  go  to  Mr.  Hoffman 
without  any  fuss,  and  tell  him  that  his  stock  was  on  the 
market.  I  did  so,  or  rather  I  told  him  that  a  case  of  mo- 
rocco was  exposed  for  sale  in  Pearl  Street  in  a  tin-store. 
He  asked  how  that  interested  him.  None,  I  said,  only  it  is 
a  case  of  morocco  that  I  sold  you,  and  I  presumed  it  was 
sold  by  him  (H.)  from  not  wanting  it,  or  it  was  stolen  by 
some  one  from  his  place,  and  sold  by  them.  To  which  he 
replied  that  it  was  not  possible  for  any  one  to  steal  that 
amount  of  leather,  and  he  had  not  sold  or  bought  any 
leather  since  the  last  bill  he  had  made  with  me,  then  about 
a  year.  I  said,  you  compel  me  to  remind  you  that  this  is  a 
dead  positive  thing  that  I  sold  you  this  leather,  and  that  it 
is  now  on  sale  in  a  tin-shop;  now,  Mr.  Hoffman,  what  is  my 
duty  in  the  matter— what  would  you  do  if  you  wei'e  in  my 
place?  To  which  he  replied,  "  I  might  do  as  I  pleased.  If 
you  ask  me,  I  will  tell  you  plainly  I'd  mind  my  own  busi- 
ness!" to  which  peremptory  recommendation  I  hastened  to 
comply. 

T.  L.  LUTKINS. 

Mr.  Lutkins  stated  to  the  Book  Committee  that 
the  Book  Concern  paid  him  forty  dollars  per 
dozen  for  this  morocco,  the  whole  amounting  to 
$1,600.  I  put  this  case  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  John 
A.  Kennedy,  Superintendent  of  Metropolitan 
Police,  who  had  the  young  man  Nelson  brought 
to  his  office.  Mr.  Kennedy  gave  me  the  following 
as  the  result  of  his  investigation; 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  57 

Office  of  Supt.  of  Metropolitan  Police, 

300  Mulberiy  Street.       New  York,  Oct.  27,  1869. 
Rev.  J.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— That  you  may  be  fully  apprised  of  all  that  took 
place  in  my  conferences  with  Abram  M.  Nelson,  I  submit 
a  statement  of  the  purport,  omitting  the  questions  pro- 
pounded by  myself,  except  where  necessary. 

Yours  truly,  J.  A.  KENNEDY,  Supt. 

New  York,  October  19,  1869. 
Detective  Bennett  having  introduced  Mr.  Nelson,  to  ques- 
tions put,  he  replied  in  substance,  as  follows:  He  is  a 
clerk  of  his  father,  A.  Nelson,  Metal  Broker,  295^^  Pearl 
Street,  New  York.  He  sometimes  does  a  little  speculating 
on  his  own  account.  About  a  year  ago,  he  operated  in  a 
lot  of  morocco.  He  does  not  know  how  much  there  was  in 
the  lot,  nor  how  much  he  paid  for  it.  He  bought  it  from  a 
man  named  Geo.  Wilson.  He  had  no  bill  for  the  morocco, 
nor  did  he  take  any  receipt  for  the  money.  He  sold  the  lot 
to  Rockwell  &  Co.,  but  he  does  not  know  how  much  he 
sold  it  for.  He  cannot  remember  how  much  he  received  a 
dozen,  nor  the  aggregate  amount  of  the  bill.  He  keeps  no 
books  nor  accounts  of  his  own  transactions.  He  only  re- 
members that  he  made  about  two  dollars  per  dozen  profit, 
without  remembering  what  it  amounted  to.  Nelson  then 
spoke  of  having  a  defective  memory.  He  does  not  know 
where  George  Wilson  lives.  Did  not  know  when  he  bought 
the  morocco  from  him.  He  does  not  know  how,  nor  when, 
nor  where  he  became  acquainted  with  Wilson.  He  may 
have  met  him  at  Fifth  Ave.  Hotel,  where  he  was  frequently 
introduced  to  strangers.  Does  not  know  who  introduced 
him.  Did  not  know  anything  about  leather.  Went  into  it 
as  a  venture.  Before  selling  it  to  Rockwell  he  had  offered 
it  to  Lutkins,  who  on  examining  it,  said  he  had  sold  it  to 
the  Methodist  Book  Concern.  That  he  knew  it  by  a  private 
mark  it  bore.  Mr.  Lutkins  was  very  anxious  to  know  from 
whom  it  was  gotten.  He  (Nelson),  refused  to  tell  him,  and 
may  or  may  not  have  said  that  he  had  had  some  of  the 
same  sort  before,  and  that  he  could  get  more,  but  that  he 
never  had  had  any  of  it  before.  He  does  not  know  where 
George  Wilson  lives.  He  has  understood  that  he  went  to 
Europe.  He  does  not  know  Wilson  by  any  other  name 
than  George  Wilson.    He  never  heard  him  called  George 


58  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

P.  Wilson.  During  the  interview,  Mr.  George  P.  Wilson, 
formerly  in  the  employ  of  the  Book  Concern,  in  the 
bindery,  was  introduced  into  the  room.  Nelson  was  asked 
whether  he  knew  him.  He  said  he  had  never  seen  him 
before.  That  he  was  not  the  person  who  sold  him  the 
morocco.  The  person  before  him  was  not  at  all  like  George 
Wilson. 

J.  A.  KENNEDY,  Supt.  Police. 
This  in  the  presence  of  J.  Lanahan,  Jas.  Bennett,  Geo.  P. 
Wilson,  J,  A.  Kennedy,  Supt 

I  was  present  at  the  above  examination  with- 
out the  knowledge  of  Nelson.  A  defective 
memory  is  apparently  a  common  infirmity  of 
thieves  and  other  criminals.  The  following 
shows,  however,  that  Nelson's  memory  was  sus- 
ceptible to  some  improvement: 

Office  of  Metropolitan  Police, 
300  Mulberry  St. 

New  York,  October  20,  1869. 
Rev.  J.  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— Mr.  Nelson  called  at  this  office  alone,  about  4 
P.  M.,  and  without  waiting  for  any  questions  to  be  put  or 
any  remark  to  be  made  relative  to  the  morocco  business, 
said,  he  had  been  thinking  of  that  matter  ever  since  he  was 
here  yesterday,  and  remembered  now  distinctly  of  having 
bought  a  lot  of  the  same  sort  of  morocco  from  the  man 
who  called  himself  George  Wilson,  before  he  sold  the  lot  to 
Mr.  Rockwell. 

J.  A.  KENNEDY,  Supt  Police. 

This  voluntary  return  of  Nelson  to  the  Police 
Office  to  retract  his  denial  of  the  previous  day 
and  acknowledge  that  he  had  before  had  some 
of  the  same  kind  of  morocco,  was  no  doubt  by 
the  advice  of  Hoffman,  who  apprehended  that 
the  fact  was  known,  or  that  I  would  find  it  out. 


ANOTHER    CLASS    OF    FRAUDS.  59 

FRAUDS   IN  binders'   CLOTH. 

For  the  purpose  of  ascertainiiig  the  extent  of 
Hoffman's  frauds  in  the  above  article,  I  adopted 
the  same  method  as  that  in  regard  to  the  matter 
of  leather.  The  result  showed  that  in  the 
eighteen  months  above  specified,  about  two  hun- 
dred pieces  were  unaccounted  for,  costing  from 
17.00  to  $9.00  per  piece. 

FRAUDS   IN   PAYMENT   OF   WAGES. 

The  wages  in  the  bindery  were  paid  every  two 
weeks,  averaging  |1,833.40  every  pay  day,  and 
147,668.39  per  year.  Hoffman  drew  the  amount 
from  the  cashier  upon  an  order  like  this:  "Due 
for  Bindery  purposes,  H.  K.  H."  My  examina- 
tion disclosed  more  than  200  frauds  in  the  pay- 
ments in  four  months.  His  method  was  this: 
If  the  wages  of  a  woman  in  the  folding  room  were 
flO.lO,  he  would  enter  the  amount  in  the  wages 
book  112.10,  always  adding  |2,  leaving  the  cents 
according  to  the  face  of  the  bill.  This  was  made 
plain  by  comparing  the  book  kept  by  the  head 
of  the  folding  room  with  Hoffman's  wages  book. 
Names  of  persons  too  were  kept  on  the  wages 
book  who  were  not  employed  in  the  house.  Some 
of  the  men  employed  testified  before  the  com- 
mittee that  when  they  signed  the  wages  book, 
Hoffman  kept  a  blotter  over  the  column  contain- 
ing the  amount  paid,  and  frequently  said  he 
would  enter  the  amount  himself.  There  are  those 
now  employed  in  that  department  of  the  Book 


60  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

Concern  who  will  verify  these  statements.  They 
were  of  common  talk  among  the  employees,  some 
of  whom  kept  books  of  their  own,  which  were 
presented  before  the  Book  Committee;  among 
them,  I  recall  the  name  of  Elijah  Myers,  who 
may  yet  be  there,  if  not,  there  are  others  who 
know  all  about  it,  and  will  so  state  if  questioned. 
Mr.  Myers  presented  a  book  in  which  he  kept  his 
own  receipt  of  wages,  but  the  Committee  ruled 
it  out.  The  agents  exercised  no  oversight  in 
person,  or  by  others,  in  the  payment  of  wages. 
Hoffman  stated  the  amount  required,  received  it 
from  the  Cashier  and  he  alone  distributed  it. 

FRAUDS   IN   INVENTORIES. 

For  brevity  I  arrange  them  in  the  form  of 
statements. 

Statement  I.  In  the  year  1868,  Hoffman  used 
$43,202.06  of  stock  in  turning  out  |98,961.18  of 
work.  In  two  yeare,  1870  and  1871,  the  pi^sent 
Superintendent  of  the  Bindery,  Mr.  W.  T.  An- 
drus,  used  |42,546.15  of  stock  in  turning  out 
$170,186.18  of  work.  I  gave  the  Committee  as 
proof  (1st)  transcripts  from  the  account  books  of 
the  Concern,  showing  the  amount  of  money  paid 
in  all  those  years  for  stock  for  the  bindery  and, 
(2nd)  tabulated  statements  showing  the  numbers, 
sizes,  and  styles  of  the  books  bound  during  the 
two  periods.  In  the  years  1870-1871,  339,682 
more  books  were  bound,  under  the  administra- 
tion of  Mr.  Audrus,  than  in  1868,  yet  less  stock 
was  used  in  these  two  years  than  Hoffman  used 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  61 

in  one.  Under  Hoffman  during  those  years  there 
was  no  material  change  in  the  price  of  stock,  as 
proved  by  written  statements  of  dealers,  and  the 
work  turned  out  in  these  years  was  uniform  in 
kind. 

Statement  II.  That  the  bindery  inventories 
and  account  books  contained  false  entries  as 
appears  from  the  following  items. 

Item  1.  To  the  bindery  inventory  of  sheet-stock 
for  1856  was  added  |12,000  in  lump  in  these 
words  and  figures :  "  Add  12  per  cent,  on  |100,000 
for  increased  cost  of  printing,  $12,000,"  whereas 
the  whole  amount  of  the  sheet-stock,  or  printed 
matter,  for  that  year,  as  per  inventory,  was  only 
183,923.56. 

In  1857,  the  valuation  of  sheet-stock  was  very 
largely  and  fictitiously  increased  in  detail  in  the 
inventory,  notwithstanding  which  "12  per  cent, 
on  1100,000  for  increased  cost  of  printing,"  was 
again  added,  whereas  the  actual  amount  of  sheet- 
stock  as  shown  by  the  inventory  was  only 
184,354.69. 

The  same  amount,  |12,000,  was  again  added  to 
the  inventory  of  1858  "  for  increased  cost  of  print- 
ing," whereas  the  actual  amount  of  sheet-stock  as 
shown  by  the  inventory,  was  only  |70,969.79. 

Thus  in  three  years  12  per  cent,  was  added  on 
157,748.79  worth  of  sheet-stock  more  than  the 
Concern  possessed,  or  than  was  shown  by  the 
inventories.  The  inventories  are  yet  in  the  Book 
Concern,  and  the  correctness  of  these  statements 
easily  can  be  verified. 


62  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS, 

It  may  be  appropriately  asked,  what  the 
bindery  had  to  do  with  the  "increased  cost  of 
printing"?  That  had  been  fixed  by  the  printing 
department,  Not  only  so,  but  much  of  the  sheet- 
stock  of  one  year  was  of  course  carried  into  the 
inventory  of  the  succeeding  year.  Thus  "  12  per 
cent."  was  duplicated  on  the  same  article. 

Item  2.  In  the  bindery  store  account  book  of 
1857  to  1862,  inclusive,  (which  is  a  record  of  work 
turned  out  in  that  department)  the  footings  of 
one  year  are  carried  into  the  footings  of  the 
succeeding  year  in  numerous  instances,  and  thus 
counted  several  times.  The  bindery  store  account 
book  is,  of  course,  still  on  hand  in  the  Book  Con- 
cern and  any  person  who  may  desire  to  verify 
this  statement  I  refer  to  said  book,  pages  2,  28, 
49,  116,  236,  276,  282,  300,  304,  332,  342,  410. 
Was  that  "mismanagement,"  or  fraud,  or  what? 

Item  3.  In  the  same  book,  although  the  work 
turned  out  in  1862,  is  entered  in  detail,  aggregat- 
ing several  thousand  items,  no  extensions,  or  foot- 
ings, of  the  cost  of  the  work  are  made  for  six 
months  of  the  year,  thus  the  value  of  the  work 
turned  out  could  only  be  guessed.  I  refer  to  this 
as  proof  of  the  most  criminal  mismanagement. 

Fully  to  appreciate  it  the  book  need  only  be 
seen.  I  had  the  extensions  carried  out  and  the 
footing  made  as  far  as  it  was  possible,  and  the 
showing  of  work  turned  out  for  that  year  was 
only  140,379.00  while  the  same  book  showed,  in 
the  succeeding  year,  1863,  that  the  work  turned 
out  was  1177,681.86.    Yet  the  work  for  the  year 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  63 

1863  was  entered  in  the  ledger  of  the  Agents' 
office,  1185,421.59,  a  difference  of  |7,730.93. 

Item  4.  The  inventory  of  the  bindeiy  for 
November  30th,  1864,  is  entered  in  the  ledger  as 
1161,641.08,  and  upon  that  basis  a  profit  is  shown 
of  118,641.08  in  that  department.  The  inventory 
itself  (which  is  the  original  record  from  which 
the  entry  should  have  been  made)  shows  the 
amount  to  be  |138,908.39.  The  entry  in  the 
ledger  is  a  false  entry.  Had  the  correct  amount, 
1138,478.19,  been  entered  in  the  ledger,  it  would 
have  shown  a  loss  in  the  bindery  of  |4,254.50. 
The  manifest  object  of  the  false  entry  in  the 
ledger  was  to  conceal  this  loss  of  |4,254.50,  and 
force  an  apparent  profit  of  |18,908.39. 

Keferring  to  the  above.  Dr.  Carlton's  expert 
accountant,  Mr.  John  A.  Gunn,  in  his  elaborate 
report,  page  33,  says: 

Dr.  Lanahan  has  denominated  the  entry  of  $161,641.08 
to  the  credit  of  "  Bindery  "  a  "  false  entry,"  claiming  that 
as,  if  the  smaller  amount  ($138,478.19)  had  been  placed  to  its 
credit,  it  would  have  shown  a  loss  of  $4,254.50,  the  Inven- 
tory was  first  increased  by  the  addition  of  this  amount  in 
order  to  show  on  the  Books  a  profit  of  $18,908.39,  and  then, 
after  the  Books  were  closed,  in  order  to  show  a  less  amount 
of  assets,  reduced  again  by  its  subtraction  to  the  amount 
stated  in  the  Exhibit 

What  the  fact  was,  cannot  be  determined  from  the 
Books,  as  there  is  no  explanation  of  the  reduction,  the  leaf 
of  the  inventory  Book  upon  which  the  figures  relating  to  it 
would  have  been  found  having  been  cut  out,  but  taking 
that  view  of  the  change  of  Inventory  in  1864  in  connection 
with  the  fact  that  in  the  following  year  (1865)  the  addition 
of  25  per  cent,  on  $117,529.55,  viz.,  $29,382.39,  to  the  account 
of  "  Work  "  in  the  Bindery,  caused  the  account  in  that  year 


64  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

to  show  a  profit  of  $7,024.12,  instead  of  a  loss  of  $22,358.27, 
the  changes  of  the  two  years  may  be  thus  stated: 

Losses  1864 $  4,254.50 

"      1865,    22,358.27 


$26,612.77 
Apparent  Profits  after  the  ehgs.,  1864,    18,908.39 

1865,       7,024.12 


Increase  of  Inventory  in  1804,  $23,162.89 
Increase  of  Work  in  1865 29,382.39 


25,932.51 
$52,545.28 


$52,545.28 


And  it'  is  a  singular  fact  that  while  the  footing  of  the 
"  Work "  in  18G5  is  $118,527.55,  twenty-five  per  cent,  on 
which  would  be  $29,631.88,  there  was  added  25  per  cent  on 
$117,529.55,   which   is  the  required   amount. 

The  explanation  as  to  the  cut  out  leaf  is,  that 
my  examination  preceded  Mr.  Gunn's  and  was 
made  before  the  leaf  was  cut  out.  The  cutting 
out  of  leaves  and  making  erasures  in  the  books 
was  commenced  when  it  was  seen  that  I  was 
having  important  records  and  papers  copied. 
The  frequent  disappearance  of  vouchers,  and 
making  erasures  in  the  books,  caused  me  to 
apprehend  the  disappearance  of  many  important 
records.  My  accountant  numbered  about  two 
hundred  erasures  in  the  books. 

Mr.  Gunn  specifies  another  remarkable  case  in 
1861,  and  says: 

The  balance  (of  amounts  due  on  periodical  accoimts)  of 
this  account  had  been  from  1850  to  1860  exactly  $10,000, 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  65 

and  with  this  balance  the  account  for  1861  was  closed, 
with  the  debit  "To  profit  and  loss  $75,009.56,"  and  cor- 
rectly footed.  Subsequently  "  $10,964.00 "  was  interlined, 
but  the  footings  remain  unchanged;  the  same  amount  is 
interlined  in  the  profit  and  loss  account,  and  the  balance 
of  the  periodical  account,  carried  forward  to  1862,  is 
$20,964.  The  book  in  which  should  be  found  the  original 
entry  is  said  to  be  lost. 

It  was  easy  to  lose  an  account  book  in  those 
days! 

Item  5.  The  bindery  store-account  book  (so 
called)  shows  in  the  final  footing  of  work  turned 
out  for  1865,  |117,547.55,  to  which  was  appended 
the  following  note:  "Add  25  per  cent,  for  in- 
creased cost  of  labor,  etc,"  thus  arbitrarily 
increasing  the  amount  of  work  for  the  year  to 
1147,909.94.  The  stock  was  paid  for  when  pur- 
chased, the  cost  of  labor  was  paid  every  two 
weeks,  and  both  were  included  in  the  price 
charged  for  binding.  The  evident  object  of  this 
addition  of  $29,382.39  was  to  force  an  apparent 
profit  of  17,024.12,  and  conceal  a  loss  of  |22,358.27, 
as  shown  above  by  Mr.  Gunn. 

Item  6.  The  bindery  store-account  book  shows 
that  the  amount  of  work  turned  out  in  the  year 
1866,  was  1147,073.03.  From  this  amount  12i 
per  cent.,  making  $18,304.12  was  deducted.  But 
while  this  sum  was  deducted  from  the  amount  of 
work  turned  out  in  the  bindery,  $12,808.36  was 
added  to  the  bindery  inventory  for  "increased 
cost  of  material  and  labor,"  and  $6,900  was  added 
to  the  two  inventories  of  bound  books  in  the 
store,  "  for  increased  cost  of  labor  and  material," 


66  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

making  an  aggregate  addition  of  |19,708.36. 
These  deductions  and  additions  were  used  to 
conceal  legitimate  results.    They  were  frauds. 

Item  7.  In  the  bindery  store-account  book, 
before  the  final  footings  for  the  year  1868  were 
made  up,  the  following  item  was  appended: 
"Binding,  Dec.  1st,  1867,  |13,540.52."  With  this 
addition  the  showing  of  work  turned  out  in  1868 
was  190,961.78.  By  referring  to  the  account  of 
work  turned  out  for  1867,  I  found  that  the 
113,540.52  was  actually  counted  twice;  not  only 
so,  but  the  footing  of  the  work  book  is  only 
$24,009.04.  It  should  be  |44,009.04— that  looks 
like  "mismanagement."  The  inventories  and 
store-account  book  above  referred  to  are  large 
well-bound  volumes  and  permanent  records,  and 
any  person  sufficiently  interested  in  this  narra- 
tive can  easily  test  the  correctness  of  my  state- 
ments. 

Item  8.  That  after  Hoffman  was  discharged 
no  record,  nor  invoice,  or  receipt  book,  for  the 
bindery  was  found  to  show  that  goods  purchased 
were  received.  He  himself  stated  that  there  was 
no  such  record,  when  examined  before  the  Sub- 
committee. Properly  to  keep  the  bindery  ac- 
count without  an  invoice  book  was  absolutely 
impossible.  I  offered  to  call  before  the  Com- 
mittee an  employee  of  the  bindery  who  was  ready 
to  testify  that  he  had  seen  Hoffman  destroying 
account  books  and  vouchers  the  day  before  he 
left  the  house,  but  my  offer  was  not  accepted. 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  67 

Such  in  part  was  the  condition  of  things  in  the 
bindery,  and  in  the  inventories  in  the  Agents' 
office. 

It  is  proper  to  state,  that  during  those  troubles 
reports  were  spread  abroad  that  the  workmen 
were  several  times  on  the  point  of  rebellion 
against  my  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the 
manufacturing  departments.  All  such  reports 
were  without  a  shadow  of  foundation.  Excepting 
Goodenough,  Hoffman,  and  one  other  employe, 
my  relations  to  them  all  were  entirely  pleasant. 
When  they  learned  that  I  was  investigating,  they 
were  prompt  to  communicate  matters  of  which 
they  had  personal  knowledge.  Having  received 
assurances  from  me  that  come  what  might,  I 
would  protect  them,  they  visited  my  residence  at 
night  to  tell  what  they  had  long  known.  To  them 
I  was  indebted  for  much  of  the  success  of  my 
investigations. 

After  Mr.  W.  T.  Andrus  was  appointed  super- 
intendent of  the  bindery,  Dr.  Carlton  said  to  me 
that  we  ought  to  have  a  Methodist  in  that  posi- 
tion and  stated  that  Mr.  Andrus  was  a  Baptist. 
I  replied  that  if  Mr.  Andrus  had  been  fit  to  serve 
under  Hoffman — ^who  was  of  no  church — nearly 
ten  years,  we  ought  to  keep  him,  especially  as  he 
had  helped  to  unearth  Hoffman's  frauds.  I  then 
notified  him  that  I  would  resist  to  the  last  ex- 
tremity the  removal  of  Mr.  Andrus.  He  was 
retained  and  is  there  yet. 


C8  ANOTHER    CLASS    OF    FRAXJDS. 

KEPOET   OF   SUB-COMMITTEE. 

Nov.  4,  1869. 

To  the  Chairman  and  members  of  the  Book 
Committee: 

The  undersigned  Sub-committee  appointed  to 
examine  the  accounts  of  the  Book  Concern  at 
New  York  respectfully  report,  that  we  have 
examined  somewhat  minutely  the  accounts  of  the 
Bindery  and  Printing  departments,  covering  the 
period  which  has  elapsed  since  the  last  General 
Conference,  and  have  also  given  such  attention 
to  the  other  accounts  of  the  Agents  as  our  time 
would  allow,  with  the  following  result: 

1.  There  were  found  several  entries  in  the 
petty  cash  book  for  which  no  vouchers  could  be 
found  (see  Exhibit  marked  "  one  ").  [This  exhibit 
I  did  not  find  when  I  copied  the  Committee's 
records.    J.  L.] 

2.  The  vouchers  of  the  printing  department 
were  not  original  bills,  but  only  monthly  state- 
ments (so  called).  We  asked  for  the  original 
bills  but  they  could  not  be  furnished. 

3.  Several  bills  for  merchandise  bought  for  the 
bindery  were  incorrectly  cast.  The  fact  that 
bills  were  paid  before  they  were  known  to  be 
correct  led  your  Committee  to  inquire  whose  duty 
it  was  under  the  requirements  of  the  Agents,  to 
carefully  examine  and  check  each  and  every 
invoice  of  goods  purchased  and  received  by  the 
Book  Concern,  and  to  certify  to  their  correctness 
before  the  cashier  should  be  at  liberty  to  pay 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  GO 

them,  and  we  found  tliat  nothing  of  the  kind  was 
done  at  all,  unless  done  by  the  head  of  the  depart- 
ment that  made  the  purchases.  But  the  head  of 
the  bindery  department  where  these  errors  were 
found,  not  unfrequently  certified  bills  without 
examining  them  at  all,  and  they  were  paid  by 
the  cashier  without  having  been  examined  by 
anybody  else.  See  exhibit  No.  2,  as  follows.  [I 
give  the  exhibits  as  they  are  referred  to,  to  make 
a  continuous  statement.    J.  L.] 

"Exhibit  2,"  bills  in  which  errors  have  been 
found: 

Voucher  No.  64.  Jan.  13,  1868. 

Campbell  and  Armstrong $1,020.00 

Over  paid  10.00 

Should  have  been  paid $1,010.00 

Campbell  an*»Arrastrong,  July  17,  1868 $953.25 

Over  paid  2.50 

Should  have  been  paid $950.75 

Merritt  and  Draper,  Dec.  4,  186—  (no  year  given).  .$264.08 
Over  paid 82.82 

Should  have  been  paid $181.26 

Armstrong,  June  30,  1868 $1,070.78 

Over  paid  630.00 

Should  have  been  paid $440.78 

4.  Examination  of  the  "Wages  Book"  (so 
called)  of  the  bindery  department  revealed  the 
fact  that  sums  of  money  amounting,  since  the 
last  General  Conference,  (a  little  more  than  one 
year)  to  more  than  nine  hundred  dollars  have 


70  ANOTHER   CLASS   OF  FllAUDS. 

been  drawn  by  tlie  superintendent  under  the  head 
of  "Miscellaneous  Articles,"  for  which  no 
vouchers  were  rendered,  and  concerning  which  no 
satisfactory  explanation  could  be  given  to  your 
Committee. 

5.  The  accounts  of  the  Agents  give  no  satis- 
factory idea  of  the  amount  allowed  the  head  of 
this  department  as  compensation  for  his  services. 
The  fact  that  when  he  was  superseded,  his  salary 
was  overdrawn  more  than  five  hundred  dollars, 
led  your  Committee  to  examine  minutely  respect- 
ing his  salary,  with  the  following  result;  that  is, 
we  found  tliat  in  the  year  1864,  his  salary  was 
raised  from  1,600  to  2,000  dollars.  Upon  this 
basis  he  was  settled  with  in  September  last. 
This  2,000  dollars  we  supposed  constituted  his 
compensation  for  services,  until  an  examination 
of  the  wages  book  of  his  department  showed  us 
that  he  had  drawn  since  the  last  General  Con- 
ference, on  each  of  three  several  occasions,  two 
hundred  dollars  as  additional  salary.  On  inquiry, 
we  learned  that  he  had  done  this  for  several  years 
in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  with  the  Agents 
by  which  his  compensation  should  be  increased 
two  hundred  dollars  a  3^ear,  but  it  was  not  to 
appear  on  the  books  as  part  of  his  salary.  We 
subsequently  found  that  these  items  did  not  cover 
the  whole  of  the  amount  allowed  Mr.  Hoffman 
as  compensation,  but  that  the  "  gold-sweepings  " 
had  been  given  to  him  for  several  years.  A 
careful  examination  of  these  gold-sweepings 
made  it  clear  to  your  Committee,   that  for  six 


ANOTHER    CLASS   OF  FIIAUDS.  71 

and  a  lialf  years  tlieir  value  could  not  liave  been 
less  than  sixteen  hundred  dollars  per  year,  which 
amount  being  added  to  twenty-two  hundred 
dollars,  made  thirty-eight  hundred  dollars  as  the 
compensation  of  Mr.  Hoffman  for  his  services, 
without  including  what  was  drawn  under  the 
head  of  "Miscellaneous  Articles."  Your  Com- 
mittee have  learned  that  other'  employees  of  the 
Concern  are  allowed  perquisites  by  the  Agents, 
but  whether  on  a  scale  of  such  magnificent  liber- 
ality as  in  the  above  cited  case,  our  researches  do 
not  enable  us  to  determine.  (See  exhibit  marked 
"  three  ").  [I  did  not  find  this  exhibit  among  the 
papers  of  the  Committee.    J.  L.] 

6.  Your  Committee  find  nothing  in  the  ac- 
counts of  the  Agents  to  show  that  the  quality  and 
quantity  of  the  goods  received,  corresponded  with 
the  quality  and  quantity  of  the  goods  bought. 
Indeed  there  was  nothing  to  show  that  the  goods 
bought  were  ever  received  at  all. 

In  view  of  this  utter  want  of  any  system  of 
check  to  prevent  and  expose  fraud,  and  knowing 
that  painful  apprehensions  existed  in  some  minds 
that  the  opportunity  for  fraud  had  not  been 
unimproved,  the  Committee  felt  called  upon  to 
determine,  if  possible,  whether  or  not  frauds  had 
been  committed  upon  the  Book  Concern,  in  con- 
nection with  the  bindery  department,  and  as  the 
result  of  our  careful  investigations,  we  are  now 
prepared  to  show  a  deficit  in  the  article  of  leather 
alone,  since  December  1st,  1867,  of  not  less  than 
1,400  dozens,  which  cost  the  Concern  not  less 


72  ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS. 

than  f20,000.  The  process  of  calculation  by 
which  this  deficit  was  discovered  will  appear  by 
an  examination  of  a  document  herewith  present- 
ed.   (Exhibit  No.  4.) 

Exhibit    of    leather  in    the    Methodist    Boole    Concern. 

Leather  on  hand  Dec.  1,  1867  (end  of  fiscal  year)  as  per 

inventory. 

Morocco,  414  dozens,  cost $10,748.00 

Sliivers,     458         "        "    4,726.00 

Sheep,       214         "        "    2,406.00 

Calf,  9         "        "    375.00 

1095  $18,255.00 

Leather  bought  from  Dec.  1,  1867,  to  Sept.  1,  1869,  (19 
months). 

Morocco,  630  dozens,   cost $15,491.70 

SIcivers,     869         "        "    8,463.89 

Sheep,      1076         "        " 10,931.05 

Calf,  19         "        "    800.00 

2594  $35,686.64 

Leather  used  from  Dec.  1,  1867,  to  Sept.  1,  1869. 

Morocco  292  dozens. 

Sliivers    728       " 

Sheep  488       " 

Calf 12       " 

1520 

Leather  on  hand  Sept.  1,  1869,  as  per  inventory  (count), 

Morocco    259   dozens. 

Skivers 397 

Sheep   79       " 

Calf    16       " 

751       " 


ANOTHER  CLASS  OF  FRAUDS.  73 

Add  leather  on  hand  Dec.  1,  1867,  to  leather  bought  from 
Dec.  1,  1867,  to  Sept.  1,  1869,  and  we  have. 

Morocco 1044  Dozens. 

Skivers 1327       " 

Sheep   1290       " 

Calf 28       " 

3689       " 

Add  amount  used  to  amount  on  hand  Sept.  1,  1869,  giving, 

Morocco 551  dozens. 

Skivers 1126      " 

Sheep  567 

Calf 28       " 

2272 

Deduct  2,272  from  3,689=1,417  as  the  amount  unaccounted 
for  as  follows: 

Morocco   493  dozens  worth  $12,400.00 

Skivers   201        "  "  2,000.00 

Sheep    723       "  "  6,600.00 

1417  $21,000.00 

JAMES  PIKE,  Chairman. 
G.  W.  MALTBY, 
JAS.  ERWIN. 

The  "  worth,"  or  cost  of  the  above  leather  was 
gotten  from  the  bills  paid.  The  "  amount  used  " 
was  the  estimate  of  master-binders  employed  by 
the  Committee  who  were  furnished  the  patterns 
from  which  we  cut,  and  average  size  skins;  the 
number  and  sizes  of  the  books  bound  and  the 
different  kinds  of  leather  used,  all  of  which 
accompanied  the  above  report,  and  the  particu- 
lars of  these  matters  were  explained  to  the  Book 
Committee  by  Dr.  Pike.  My  examination,  ex- 
tending through  several  weeks,  was  more  exact 
than  tlie  Sub-committee's,  as  I  had  more  time  to 
devote  to  it. 


FKOM  PRIVACY  TO  PUBLICITY. 

My  investigations  resulting  in  the  discovery  of 
most  of  tlie  above  facts,  had  been  conducted  so 
quietly  through  the  several  months  already 
specified  that  nothing  was  known  of  the  matter 
outside  of  the  Book  Concern,  except  to  a  very 
few  confidential  ministerial  friends  untU  after 
the  discharge  of  the  offending  employees,  al- 
though the  pastors  of  New  York  and  vicinity 
met  there  every  Monday  in  "  Preachers'  Meeting." 
The  cause  of  the  discharge  of  Goodenough  and 
Hoffman  then  began  to  be  talked  of  freely,  and  on 
the  21st  of  Sept.,  1869,  the  following  headed  "  A 
Painful  Eevelation"  appeared  in  the  New  York 
Times : 

It  is  with  great  reluctance  that  we  give  currency  to  a 
very  unpleasant  report  which  has  reached  us  in  regard  to 
an  institution  which  of  all  others  in  the  land  ought  to  be 
beyond  reproach,  or  even  suspicion.  The  authority,  how- 
evex',  for  what  we  are  about  to  announce  is  of  such  a 
chai'acter  that  silence  on  our  part  would,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, amount  to  delinquency.  We  are  credibly  as- 
sured that  the  new  Agent  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern, 
Rev.  Dr.  Lanahan,  has  discovered  in  that  establishment 
great  corruption  and  fraud,  involving  losses  to  the  amount 
of  several  hundred  thousand  dollars. 

The  subject,  we  understand,  is  now  undergoing  investi- 
gation, and  as  soon  as  the  details  can  be  given  to  the  public 
without  prejudice  to  any  but  culpable  parties,  we  shall 
endeavor  to  furnish  them. 

These  frauds,  it  is  said,  have  been  going  on  for  some 
eight  or  nine  years,  and  of  course  their  full  extent  is  not 
74 


FROM   PRIVACY   TO    TUBLICITY.  75 

yet  ascertained  with  precision.  The  magnitude  of  the  busi- 
ness transacted  by  this  Concern,  and  the  reputation  which 
it  has  enjoyed  for  probity  in  its  management,  conspire  to 
give  to  any  suspicion  against  it  a  painful  importance.  It  is 
only  six  months  since  we  had  the  satisfaction  of  saying 
of  this  institution,  in  the  columns  of  the  Times,  "  that  it 
should  be  recorded,  to  the  honor  of  all  concerned,  that  not 
a  dollar  has  ever  been  lost  by  the  defalcation  of  its  mana- 
gers from  the  commencement  of  its  business "  in  1789. 
Unfortunately  that  cannot  be  said  of  the  Methodist  Book 
Concern  any  more. 

With  a  note  of  introduction  from  Kev.  Dr. 
John  McClintock,  to  Mr.  J.  Biglow,  editor  of  The 
Times,  I  called  on  that  gentleman  and  expressed 
regret  at  the  appearance  of  the  article,  and  stated 
that  the  frauds  were  confined  to  employees  and 
that  they  did  not  in  any  way  impair  the  financial 
condition  of  the  house.  At  that  time  I  did  not 
suppose  that  my  colleague  was  personally  in- 
volved, strange  as  his  conduct  had  been.  The 
next  day  the  following  appeared  in  the  Times: 

[From  the  New  York  Times,  September  23,  1869.] 

Inquiries  at  The  Methodist  Book  Concern,  in  relation  to 
the  mismanagement  of  its  affairs,  disclose  the  fact  that 
the  frauds  to  which  we  alluded  in  Tuesday's  Times  were 
confined  to  employes  of  the  institution,  and  in  no  respect 
compromis-e  its  heads. 

The  amount,  as  we  have  already  stated,  is  not  yet — 
pei'haps  may  never  be — fully  ascertained;  but  that  it  has 
been  large,  and  that  the  abstractions  had  continued  through 
a  series  of  years,  is  conceded. 

We  presume  the  Committee  will  direct  an  examination 
of  the  situation,  if  they  have  not  already  instituted  one, 
which  will  be  in  due  time  submitted  to  the  public 

We  are  happy  to  learn  that  the  financial  condition  of  the 
institution  is  not  in  the  least  affected  by  these  losses,  they 
having  been  distributed  through  a  series  of  years. 


76  FEOM  PRIVACY   TO    PUBLICITY. 

The  article  in  the  Times  produced  mucli  excite- 
ment in  Methodist  circles,  and  the  editor  of  the 
Christian  Advocate,  Dr.  Daniel  Curry,  vrho  from 
the  beginning  had  known  of  my  investigations 
and  zealously  encouraged  me  in  them,  now  urged 
me  to  unite  with  my  colleague  in  a  published  card 
denying  that  there  had  been  any  frauds.  Dr. 
Carlton  also  insisted  that  we  ought  to  publish 
such  denial.  I  expressed  willingness  to  unite 
with  him  in  a  card  saying  that  the  frauds  were 
confined  to  certain  employees.  Finally  he  re- 
quested me  to  unite  with  him  in  the  following,  to 
be  published  in  the  Northern  Christian  Advo- 
cate: 

New  York,  Sept.  23,  1869. 
Rev.  Dr.  Lore,  Editor:— Say  to  your  readers  that  the 
article  in  the  New  York  Times  of  Sept.  21st,  headed  "A 
Painful  Revelation"  is  a  gross  falsehood  and  slander,  so 
far  as  it  reflects  upon  the  integrity  of  either,  or  both  the 
undersigned. 

I  added  the  following:  "It  is,  however,  proper 
to  say  that  frauds  have  been  committed  by  cer- 
tain late  employees,  but  they  have  not  in  any 
way  impaired  the  financial  integTity  of  the  Book 
Concern." 

Dr.  Carlton  refused  to  sign  the  card  as  thus 
amended,  and  said:  'T^t  would  be  wrong  thus  to 
give  publicity  to  the  matter."  I  replied,  "it  is 
already  public,  and  a  denial  will  only  increase 
the  excitement."  He  then  brought  Mr.  E.  L. 
Fancher,  who  became  so  insulting  because  T 
would  not  sign  a  card  of  unqualified  denial  of 


FROM  PKIVACY   TO    PUBLICITY.  77 

fraud,  written  by  himself,  that  I  retired  from  my 
desk  and  left  him  sitting  there.  This  I  did  to 
avoid  being  misrepresented  by  him. 

To  allay  the  general  excitement  and  clamor 
raised  against  me  for  refusing  to  make  a  public 
denial  that  any  frauds  had  been  committed,  I  put 
the  following  in  the  hands  of  the  editor  of  the 
Christian  Advocate  for  publication: 

New  York,  Sept.  24,  1869. 
Dr.  Curiy: — I  address  you  this  note  to  say  that  I  am 
ready  and  willing  to  sign  any  truthful  statement  in  regard 
to  the  frauds  perpetrated  by  certain  late  employees  of  the 
Book  Concern.  Yours  truly, 

J.  LANAHAN. 

He  refused  to  publish  it,  but  continued  to  com- 
plain that  I  would  not  deny  the  existence  of 
frauds,  and,  as  will  be  seen,  my  refusal  was  ulti- 
mately made  the  ground  of  one  of  the  charges 
preferred  against  me  by  a  set  of  men  three- 
fourths  of  whom  were  entire  strangers  to  me. 

5.  I  may  here  state  that  neither  directly,  nor 
indirectly,  in  person,  by  third  person,  by  writing, 
by  message,  or  messenger,  nor  in  any  other  way 
did  I  communicate  the  information  upon  which 
the  article  in  the  Times  was  based,  nor  at  any 
time  during  the  controversy  did  I  communicate 
anything  to  the  secular  press.  The  removal  of 
the  defrauders  broke  the  silence  of  many  who  had 
known  of  the  frauds,  especially  among  the  work- 
men employed  in  the  Concern,  who  now  felt  free 
to  voice  what  they  had  long  known  and  actually 
witnessed.    I  state  these  facts  because  the  Chris- 


78  FROM  PRIVACY   TO    PUBLICITY. 

tian  Advocate  and  tlie  Book  Committee  made  tlie 
impression  upon  the  Churcli,  that  as  soon  as  I 
discovered  the  frauds,  I  almost  prockiimed  them 
as  from  the  house  top.  Directly  the  reverse  was 
true.  The  publication  in  the  Times  greatly  inter- 
rupted my  investigations.  With  equal  particu- 
larity and  emphasis  I  affirm  that  never  through- 
out the  whole  controversy  did  I  communicate 
anything  to  the  secular  press,  though  repeatedly 
charged  with  "  inspiring  "  it. 


FIRST  MEETING  OF  THE  BOOK  COMMITTEE 
TO  INVESTIGATE  CHARGES. 

THEIR  REPORT. 

The  Committee  met  at  805  Broadway,  New 
York,  Nov.  4tli,  1869,  at  nine  o'clock  A.  M.,  to 
investigate  the  alleged  frauds.  Rev.  B.  F. 
Rawlings  was  elected  Chairman  and  Rev.  L.  M. 
Vernon,  Secretary.  The  Agents  were  requested 
to  report.  Dr.  Carlton  said  he  would  be  ready 
at  the  next  session.  I  thereupon  presented  a  de- 
tailed report  of  the  frauds  committed  as  related 
above.  When  I  had  finished  reading  my  report. 
Rev.  G.  W.  Woodruff  exclaimed  "The  whole 
church  owes  you  a  debt  of  thanks."  But,  the  very 
next  day  he  acted  toward  me  as  if  he  thought 
the  whole  church  owed  me  censure  instead  of 
thanks.  It  was  apparent  that,  in  the  meantime, 
some  mysterious  influence  had  been  at  work.  On 
his  motion  a  committee  was  appointed  to  prepare 
rules  for  the  government  of  the  Committee.  The 
promptness  with  which  the  rules  were  reported 
showed  that  they  had  been  prepared  before  they 
were  ordered.  The  following  is  the  principal 
rule  adopted: 

At  the  request  of  any  three  members,  the  Committee 
shall  go  into  executive  session  at  which  no  person  shall  be 
present  but  the  Committee  and  such  persons  as  shall  be 

79 


80  FIRST  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

summoned  at  that  particular  session.  As  it  is  desirous  ttiat 
the  business  of  the  Committee  shall  be  held  confidential, 
no  member  shall  communicate  any  of  its  proceedings  with- 
out consent  of  the  Committee. 

This  remarkable  rule,  adopted  after  the  pre- 
sentation of  my  report  and  that  of  the  Sub-com- 
mittee, foreshadowed  much  that  followed.  After 
its  adoption.  Dr.  Carlton  was  again  called  on  for 
a  report.  He  responded  by  a  verbal  statement. 
The  Committee  then  adopted  the  following: 

Resolved,  That  Dr.  Carlton  be  requested  to  make  such 
statements,  and  to  present  such  facts  and  evidence  as  he 
may  please  concerning  the  matters  before  the  Committee, 
and  that  he  call  on  such  persons  as  may  give  the  Com- 
mittee facts  in  the  case. 

The  above  brought  no  response. 

About  this  time  S.  J.  Goodenough  addressed 
several  letters  to  the  Committee,  advising  them 
how  to  proceed.  He  also  wrote  several  abusive 
and  threatening  letters  to  me,  to  which  I  made 
no  reply.  I  saw  that  a  plot  had  been  formed  to 
get  up  a  personal  controversy.  Kev.  George  W. 
Woodruff  also  became  especially  offensive  to  me 
personally.  He  asked  me  numerous  questions, 
many  of  which  had  no  relation  to  the  matters 
treated  in  my  report,  nor  before  the  Committee. 
His  manner  was  tantalizing,  but  I  answered  his 
questions  as  well  as  I  could,  taking  no  notice  of 
his  offensive  words  and  maimer. 

Finally  he  said,  "I  have  one  more  question  to 
ask;  it  is  a  very  delicate  question  and  I  prefer 
not  to  ask  it,  but  my  duty  requires  that  I  ask  it." 


FIRST  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  81 

I  urged  him  to  ask  his  question  and  not  continue 
to  trifle  with  my  feelings.  He  then  said, "  It  is  a 
very  delicate  question;  I  wish  the  Committee 
would  order  me  to  ask  it."  Dr.  Slicer  replied, 
"  How  can  the  Committee  order  a  question  when 
they  do  not  know  what  it  is?  "  Again  I  requested 
him  to  ask  his  "delicate  question"  and  said 
"stop  dragging  your  iron  harrow  over  my  feel- 
ings." In  a  dramatic  way  he  turned  about  and 
pointing  his  fiuger  at  me  said  with  much  earnest- 
ness, "I  notify  you  in  advance  that  if  you  deny 
it,  I  wiU  prove  it." 

Ke>ceiving  no  protection  from  the  Chairman, 
who  really  seemed  to  be  in  sympathy  with  Mr. 
Woodruff,  I  expressed  my  estimate  of  his  con- 
duct, and  disgusted  with  his  words  and  behavior 
left  the  room  and  building,  and  made  the  above 
record.  I  had  not  said  that  I  would  resign, 
but  a  Committee  of  three  was  promptly  appoint- 
ed to  call  on  me  and  ascertain  whether  I  intend- 
ed to  return.  I  soon  discovered  that  the  affair 
was  a  plot  to  cause  me  to  resign  in  disgust.  I 
also  learned  that  with  the  approval  of  some  of 
the  Committee,  Dr.  Carlton  had  already  spoken 
to  a  person  to  take  my  place.  Under  the  advice 
of  friends,  I  determined  to  return  to  the  Commit- 
tee, and  maintain  my  charges,  regardless  of  any 
treatment  I  might  receive.  Bishop  Janes  ap- 
peared before  the  Committee,  and  Mr.  Woodruff 
was  made  to  see  that  he  had  over-acted,  and  pre- 
sented a  paper  unsigned,  of  which  the  following 
is  a  copy: 


82  FIRST   MEETING   OP  BOOK  COMMITTEE. 

Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  say  to  the  Committee  that  I  was 
entirely  misunderstood  by  Dr.  Lanahan  and  the  members 
of  the  Committee  in  the  matter  of  my  asliing  a  question. 
I  ought  to  have  propounded  my  question  without  any 
accompanying  remarks,  and  th«  reason  I  made  the  accom- 
panying remarlis  was  that  I  did  not  wish  to  tal^e  Dr. 
Lanahan  by  sui-prise.  In  this  I  was  unfortunate,  and  so 
unfortunate  that  I  do  not  wonder  that  Dr.  Lanahan  should 
have  been  offended,  but  I  wish  distinctly  to  declare  that 
I  had  not  the  remotest  intention  to  wound  his  feelings,  or 
do  the  Committee  wrong. 

Did  not  wish  to  take  me  by  surprise! 

He  never  asked  the  "  delicate  question."  This 
was  the  first  out-cropping  of  much  like  it  that 
followed  in  the  numerous  meetings  of  the  Com- 
mittee. 

Although  my  report  and  that  of  the  Sub-com- 
mittee now  had  been  in  the  hands  of  the  Commit- 
tee several  days,  and  although  Dr.  Carlton  had 
not  made  any  report  though  twice  requested, 
the  Committee  adopted  the  following: 

Whereas,  Dr.  Lanahan,  one  of  the  Agents  at  New  York, 
declared  before  this  Committee  that  there  had  been  fraud, 
theft,  corruption  and  defalcation  in  the  affairs  of  the  Book 
Concern,  therefore 

Resolved,  that  we  respectfully  request  Dr.  Lanahan  to 
present  at  the  earliest  possible  time  all  the  facts  in  his 
possession,  by  which  the  character  and  extent  of  the  fraud, 
theft,  coiTuption  and  defalcation  can  be  determined  and 
traced  to  the  guilty  parties. 

And  whereas,  Rev.  James  Pike,  Chairman  of  the  Sub- 
committee appointed  to  inquire  into  the  affairs  of  the  New 
York  Book  Concern,  has  stated  that  he  is  prepared  to  show 
fraud  and  embezzlement  in  the  New  York  Book  Concern, 
therefore 

Resolved,  That  Mr.  Pike  be  requested  to  present  at  his 
earliest  convenience,  to  this  Committee,  all  the  proofs  of 
his  statement. 


FIRST   MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE,  83 

Even  at  this  early  period  it  was  made  appar- 
ent that  some  of  the  Committee  were  being  used. 
One  object  appeared  to  be  to  get  up  compli- 
cations and  create  confusion.  I  had  not  used  all 
the  varied  epithets  contained  in  the  above  pre- 
amble, but  I  made  no  objection,  because  I  was 
fully  prepared  to  prove  them  all — every  one  of 
them.  They  wanted  "  all  the  facts  in  my  posses- 
sion." Did  somebody  fear  that  I  had  facts 
which  applied  higher  than  subordinates? 

To  the  above  I  made  the  following  reply: 

Brethren: — Appointed  by  the  General  Conference  to  aid 
in  the  management  of  the  Book  Concern,  I  have  felt  it  my 
duty  to  lay  before  you  a  number  of  unpleasant  facts  which 
have  come  to  my  knowledge.  I  have  found,  as  I  believe, 
evidence  of  fraud  and  of  losses  to  a  large  amount.  I  have 
placed  before  you  letters  and  other  evidence  from  various 
parties  to  substantiate  my  statements  and  have  informed 
you  that  the  parties  are  willing  to  appear  before  you  per- 
sonally. Having  done  this,  my  duty  to  you  in  this  particular 
is  discharged.  Whether  further  examination  shall  be  made, 
and  whether  the  interests  of  the  Book  Concern  shall  be 
more  perfectly  guarded,  is  for  you  to  determine.  As  As- 
sistant Agent  I  have  made  all  examination  in  my  power. 
I  have  done  all  I  could  to  remove  those  I  deemed  guilty 
and  to  guard  the  interests  committed  to  my  care.  In  doing 
this  I  have  brought  upon  myself  the  undying  hostility  of 
those  whose  interests  were  opposed  to  an  examination.  I 
am  ready  at  any  time  to  give  the  Committee  any  further 
information  touching  the  matters  embraced  in  the  papers 
alx'eady  submitted,  and  shall  continue  to  devote  myself  to 
the  work  assigned  me  by  the  General  Conference,  expecting, 
if  my  life  is  spared,  to  lay  before  that  body,  and  before  the 
entire  Church,  a  full  account  of  such  matters  connected 
with  the  Concern  as  I  think  the  great  body  of  the  preachers 
and  people  should  know.  Yours  truly, 

J.  LANAHAN. 


84  FIRST  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

After  the  above  letter  was  read  to  tlie  Com- 
mittee, the  Chairman  again  asked  me  if  I  had 
"any  further  communication  to  make?"  I  re- 
plied, "I  have  other  facts  T  could  present,  but 
think  I  have  presented  enough,  and  do  not  desire 
to  present  any  more  at  present." 

The  Chairman  then  asked  Dr.  Carlton  if  he 
was  ready  to  make  the  written  report  that  had 
been  requested.  He  answered  that  he  would 
be  ready  that  evening.  When  the  evening  came, 
he  was  not  ready,  but  presented  a  long  letter 
from  S.  J.  Goodenough,  denying  his  frauds,  and 
requesting  the  Committee  to  appoint  some  of 
their  members  "to  visit  the  publishing  houses 
of  New  York  to  ascertain  what  they  paid  for 
paper  of  various  grades."  The  following  was 
promptly  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  we  appoint  a  committee  to  visit  some  of 
leading  publishing  establishments  of  the  city  to  inquire  the 
prices  of  the  various  qualities  of  paper  used  by  them  from 
1863  to  1869. 

The  Chair  appointed  Messrs.  Blades,  Bingham 
and  Van  Cleve.  They  refused  to  go  on  such  an 
errand,  and  the  resolution  was  reconsidered, 
and  laid  on  the  table. 

Failing  to  get  a  report  from  the  Senior  Agent, 
in  answer  to  the  charges  contained  in  my  report 
and  that  of  the  Sub-committee,  the  following 
was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  Dr.  Carlton  be  requested  to  report  the 
profits  of  the  Printing  and  Bindery  Departments  during 
the  last  six  years. 


FIRST   MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  85 

The  promptness  of  the  response  showed  that 
the  report  had  been  prepared  before  it  was 
called  for.    The  following  is  the  report: 

PRINTING    DEPARTMENT— DISBURSEMENTS    AND 


PROFITS. 

Paid  for 

Paid  for 

Merchandise. 

Wages. 

Disbursements. 

Profits. 

1864 

$169,161.01 

$44,949.18 

$223,508.71 

$30,772.45 

1865 

133.488.42 

43,101.40 

210,022.61 

15,627.67 

1866 

219,126.16 

47,686.21 

264,641.09 

26,459.76 

1867 

150,396.71 

49,363.77 

225,807.16 

11,264.29 

1868 

130,691.87 

50,434.79 

204,648.98 

17,769.25 

1869 

136,786.39 

50,475.02 

191,700.69 

8,005.58 

$939,650.56  $286,010.37  $1,320,329.24  $109,899.00 
BINDERY  DEPARTMENT— DISBURSEMENTS  AND 


PROFITS. 

Paid  for 

Paid  for 

Merchandise. 

Wages. 

Disbursements. 

Profits. 

1864 

$120,889.31 

$54,065.06 

$151,710.98 

$18,908.39 

1865 

96,321.60 

42,993.99 

147,909.94 

7,024.12 

1860 

64,459.82 

52,560.27 

128,688.91 

25,146.69 

1867 

43,987.28 

55,302.36 

124,405.63 

11,180.23 

1868 

45,114.28 

42,505.35 

90,961.78 

7,382.28 

1869 

41,755.17 

48,325.88 

111,744.04 

16,617.24 

$412,527.46  $295,752.91  $755,421.28  $86,258.95 

I  make  no  comment  on  the  above  remarkable 
statement,  except  to  say,  that  if  by  "disburse- 
ments" is  meant  "amounts  paid  for  merchan- 
dise" and  "wages" — and  I  cannot  think  of  any 
other  meaning — the  discrepancies  are  inexplica- 
ble. Any  reader  can  judge  of  this  by  comparing 
the  amounts  paid,  with  the  amounts  disbursed 
in   any   one   year.    The   Committee   heard   the 


86  FIRST   MEETING    OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

paper  read,  and  ordered  it  to  be  placed  on  their 
minutes  without  asking  a  single  question.  The 
large  amounts  paid  for  merchandise  and  wages 
show  the  immense  interests  under  the  control  of 
Goodenough  and  Hoffman,  who  did  all  the  pur- 
chasing for  their  respective  departments.  Were 
there  ever  before  or  since  such  opportunities  for 
frauds  by  two  subordinates? 

The  purchase  of  paper  alone  must  have  aver- 
aged 1120,000  per  year,  the  vouchers  for  which 
were  kept  by  Goodenough,  and,  as  stated,  the 
cashier  paid  on  monthly  statements — so-called. 
I  saw  the  vouchers  for  one  year,  and  after 
examining  them,  returned  them  to  Mr.  Good- 
enough.  That,  however,  was  before  the  charge 
of  fraud  was  made.  At  a  later  period,  it  must 
be  remembered,  when  the  Sub-committee  called 
for  them,  "  they  could  not  be  furnished." 

The  Committee  had  passed  a  resolution  re- 
questing me  to  furnish  a  synopsis  of  the  report  I 
had  made,  and  I  presented  it  with  the  following: 

Rev.  Dr.  Rawlings,  Chairman  of  the  Book  Committee:— I 
herewith  present  a  synopsis  of  the  case  laid  befoi'e  the 
Committee.  I  am  ready  now,  and  shall  be  at  any  time,  to 
answer  any  questions  and  to  sustain  the  charges  I  have 
made,  in  any  way  the  Committee  may  require. 

Respectfully,  J.  LANAHAN. 

The  Committee  liad  now  been  in  session  twelve 
days.  No  report  having  been  received  from  Dr. 
Carlton,  the  following  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  Dr.  Carlton,  Agent,  be  requested  to  present 
to  the  Committee  a  full  report  in  writing  of  the  admiuis- 


FIKST   MEETING   OF   BOOK   COMMITTEE.  87 

tratlon  of  the  affairs  of  the  Book  Concern,  making  special 
reference  to  the  documents  now  before  the  Committee  from 
the  Assistant  Agent,  and  also  to  the  report  of  the  Sub- 
committee who  especially  investigated  the  affairs  of  the 
New  York  Book  Concern. 

To  the  above,  lie  responded  in  tlie  following 
long  letter,  without  date,  but  presented  on  the 
16th  of  November. 

To  the  Book  Committee. 

Dear  Brethren:— In  reply  to  your  resolution  handed  me 
about  half  past  eleven  o'clock,  asking  the  principal  Agent  to 
present  to  the  Book  Committee  as  early  as  possible  a  full 
report  in  writing  of  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the 
Book  Concern,  making  special  reference  to  the  documents 
before  the  Committee,   etc. 

I  cannot  reply  to  the  document,  presented  by  the 
Assistant  Agent,  in  the  brief  time  you  .will  remain  in  ses- 
sion— one  which  has  occupied  his  time  and  attention,  ac- 
cording to  the  document  itself,  six  months  and  besides,  it 
would  place  the  Agents  in  antagonism  which  I  desire  to 
avoid  as  far  as  possible,  and  besides,  the  events  referred 
to,  occurred  in  that  part  of  the  Concern  especially  com- 
mitted to  his  supervision.  We  admit  our  responsibility  in 
the  employment  and  dismissal  of  employees  and  I  will  here 
state  at  once  why  I  did  not  discharge  Mr.  Goodenough  when 
the  Assistant  Agent  charged  him  with  corruption  and  fraud 
in  the  purchase  of  paper. 

1.  Because  Mr.  Goodenough  had  been  a  worthy  member 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  for  nearly  or  quite  forty 
years  (and  still  retains  his  membership)  and  during  most 
of  the  time  he  had  filled  the  several  offices  of  Class  Leader, 
Steward,  Trustee,  Supeiintendent  of  Sunday  School,  and 
was  many  years  the  Leader  of  the  Choir  in  the  Mulberry 
St.  M.  E.  Church  (now  St.  Paul)  and  Treasurer  of  the  S.  S. 
Union  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

I  never  knew  a  man  who  enjoyed  the  confidence  of  our 
church  and  the  entire  community  to  a  greater  extent  than 
Samuel  J,  Goodenough;  and  besides,  he  has  been  a  member 
of  my  family  five  years  previous  to  the  last  General  Con- 
ference and  a  more  devoted  Christian  man  I  never  knew. 


88  FIKST  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

Judge  then  of  my  surprise  when  he  was  charged  with 
corruption  and  fx-aud  in  the  purchase  of  materials  for  the 
Booli  Concern. 

Sometime  previous  to  the  complaint  by  the  Assistant 
Agent,  Mr.  Goodenough  had  spoken  to  me  of  the  treatment 
he  had  met  with  from  Dr.  Lanahan.  He  complained  to  me 
that  he  was  treated  very  ungentlemanly  and  he  could  not 
consent  to  do  business  with  him. 

I  endeavored  to  persuade  him  that  Dr.  Lanahan  was  all 
right  though  his  manner  might  be  a  little  different  from 
ours.  This  being  the  state  of  feeling  between  the  Assist- 
ant Agent  and  Mr.  Goodenough,  the  Superintendent  of  the 
Binding  Department,  I  thought  it  wise  to  take  a  little  time 
to  look  into  the  matter  myself  lest  prejudice  might  have 
something  to  do  in  the  business. 

A  few  days  passed  and  Dr.  Lanahan  said,  if  I  did  not 
discharge  Mr.  Goodenough,  he  would  leave  the  house.  Mr. 
Goodenough  knowing  the  feeling  of  Dr.  Lanahan  said  he 
would  relieve  me  from  all  embarrassment  and  accordingly 
forwarded  to  me  his  resignation. 

2.  As  to  the  commissions  paid  advertising  agents,  we 
can  only  say  there  are  twenty-six  agents,  who  procure  ad- 
vertisements for  our  periodicals  and  we  have  paid  in  no 
instance  more  than  the  usual  commissions.  As  evidence, 
there  are  but  two  papers  in  the  United  States  that  do  not 
pay  commissions  and  not  one  religious  paper,  and  while 
some  allow  but  20  per  cent,  which  is  our  uniform  price, 
others  allow  25  and  30  per  cent  and  some  will  pay  agents 
almost  any  amount. 

3.  As  to  interest  on  bank  deposits,  etc.,  we  refer  you  to 
the  letters  and  papers  of  the  President  of  the  National  Shoe 
and  Leather  Bank,  where  the  accounts  are  kept 

4.  The  discrepancy  between  the  books  kept  by  the  Agents 
of  the  several  Book  Depositories,  grew  out  of  a  misappre- 
hension of  the  Agents  of  the  Depositories,  by  which  they 
charged  themselves  twice  with  ceilain  sales  when  they 
received  pay  but  once,  and  this  occurred  in  the  following 
manner: 

When  they  exchanged  our  books  for  books  of  other 
houses,  they  reported  them  as  sales,  and  both  were  charged 
to  them  on  our  books,  whereas  they  received  the  cash  for 
but  one  sale,  and  when  the  mistake  was  ascertained,  the 
matter  was  carefully  looked  into  and  the  error  corrected, 


FIKST   MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  89 

tbe  Agents  being  fully  satisfied  that  it  was  nothing  more  or 
less  than  a  simple  difference  in  the  keeping  of  tbe  accounts 
as  above  stated. 

"  Are  the  accounts  accurately  and  economically  kept?  " 
We  answer  they  are— but  if  the  Committee  can  devise  a 
better  method— we  shall  be  perfectly  willing  to  adopt  it,  as 
we  do  not  deem  to  be  so  perfect  in  this,  or  any  other 
Department  of  the  House  as  not  to  listen  to  suggestions  of 
wisdom   and  experience. 

"  There  were  found  several  entries  in  the  Petty  Cash  Book 
for  which  no  vouchers  could  be  found." 

The  only  explanation  we  can  give  to  this  question  is  that 
the  vouchers  after  having  been  examined  by  Dr.  Lanahan, 
were  mislaid,  as  the  cashier  paid  no  bills  without  a  voucher, 
and  the  principal  book-keeper  says  they  were  regularly 
filed. 

7.  The  bills  for  paper  were  paid  on  monthly  statements 
certified  to  be  con-ect  by  Mr.  Goodenough,  after  the 
paper  was  weighed  and  counted  by  another  party,  and  his 
report  compared  with  the  original  bills,  which  were  then 
filed  and  kept  to  be  seen  by  the  Agents  when  called  for, 
which  was  done  as  often  as  they  deemed  it  necessary,  and 
notwithstanding  the  Sub-committee  report  they  could  not 
be  found  when  called  for,  there  is  abundant  proof  of  their 
existence,  as  both  the  Agents  have  seen  and  examined  them 
for  one  year,  at  least,  and  the  Assistant  Agent  admits  that 
he  has  found  all  of  them  for  several  years,  only  one  year's 
bills  being  necessary,  and  we  have  no  doubt  they  can  be 
found. 

8.  Four  bills  in  the  Bindeiy  department  were  found  to 
be  incorrect,  but  these  cases  were  clerical  errors  and  such 
as  were  liable  to  occur,  and  do  occur  in  the  best  conducted 
business  houses.  In  one  case  the  sum  was  $2.50,  which 
was  promptly  refunded  when  the  error  was  pointed  out, 
and  in  the  other  case  $10,  which  will  probably  be  returned 
soon.  The  other  two  bills  were  found  to  be  coiTCCt  as  to 
the  amount,  the  error  occurring  in  transcribing  the  number 
of  pounds  from  the  books. 

THOS.   CARLTON. 

After  repeated  and  formal  calls  made  verbally 
and  by  resolutions,  tbe  above  was  presented  on 


90  FIRST   MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

the  twelfth  day  of  the  Committee's  meeting, 
during  which  time  from  twenty  to  thirty  ses- 
sions had  been  held  (the  Committee  meeting  two 
and  three  times  each  day),  and  was  all  that  was 
ever  gotten  from  the  Senior  Agent,  who  had 
been  at  the  head  of  the  Book  Concern  eighteen 
years  and  six  months;  and  that  too  after  I  had 
communicated  to  him  from  day  to  day,  and  from 
week  to  week  during  six  months,  every  discovery 
I  had  made.  When  I  overwhelmed  Goodenough 
and  Hoffman  with  positive  evidence  of  their 
falsehoods  and  frauds,  he  was  present  but  said 
not  a  word.  The  Committee,  however,  received 
his  letter  without  a  word  of  inquiry  or  complaint, 
and  as  will  be  seen,  endorsed  his  management  of 
the  Book  Concern. 

All  through  my  investigations  it  was  apparent 
that  Goodenough  and  Hoffman  had  a  mysterious 
grip  upon  Dr.  Carlton,  by  which  they  compelled 
him  to  stand  for  their  defense.  What  it  was  1 
could  only  guess.  It  may  have  been  some  mat- 
ters in  connection  with  the  gigantic  oil  compa- 
nies in  which  they  were  all  yoked  together. 

The  Committee  now  began  to  talk  of  the  re- 
port they  should  make  to  the  Church  as  to  the 
result  of  their  investigations.  It  was  repeatedly 
said  that  it  would  not  be  safe  to  name  the  ac- 
cused parties,  as  they  might  be  sued  for  slander. 
This  Ivind  of  talk  among  certain  of  the  Commit- 
tee became  so  common  that  it  was  referred  to  in 
Zion's  Herald  of  December  2,  1869.  When  com- 
menting on  the  report,  after  it  was  published. 


FIRST   MEETING   OF  BOOK   C03NIMITTEE.  91 

the  Herald  said:  "There  seems  to  have  been 
a  timidity  on  the  part  of  the  Committee  based 
perhaps  upon  two  fears,  one  was  a  threat  of 
prosecution  for  libel  if  they  told  the  facts  con- 
cerning certain  guilty  parties,  and  the  other, 
the  more  honorable  one,  of  disliking  to  rake 
open  before  a  curious  world  what  should  be 
kept  as  secret  as  possible."  They  might,  at 
least,  have  quoted  what  my  report  said  of  the 
frauds  of  Goodenough  and  Hoffman,  both  of 
whom  I  had  named.  But  they  were  very  timid 
in  dealing  with  "Brother  Goodenough"  and 
Mr.  Hoffman,  especially  the  former. 
The  following  is  their  report: 

We,  the  Book  Committee,  appointed  by  the  General  Con- 
ference of  18G8,  being  convened  in  New  York,  to  attend  to 
the  publishing  interests  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
have  had  our  attention  called  to  alleged  losses  and  frauds 
in  the  New  York  Book  Conoem,  and  after  careful  investi- 
gation and  serious  inquiry  into  the  business  of  the  House 
during  a  session  of  two  weeks,  and  availing  ourselves  of 
labors  and  investigations  of  a  Sub-committee  previously 
appointed,  have  reached  the  following  judgment,  which, 
for  the  information  of  the  Church  and  of  the  Conferences 
we  embody  in  the  following  resolutions,  to  wit: 

Resolved,  1.  That  it  is  our  deliberate  judgment  that  the 
last  exhibit  of  the  Agents  is  a  ti*ue  and  reliable  statement 
of  the  responsibility  and  solvency  of  the  Book  Concern  of 
New  York. 

2.  That  though  the  Agents  have  bought  paper  and  other 
materials  for  the  Printing  Department  mainly  through 
paper  dealers,  or  middle  men,  yet  it  does  not  appear  by  the 
facts  before  the  Committee  that  the  Concern  has  suffered 
any  serious  loss  by  such  mode  of  making  purchases. 

3.  That  the  investigation  of  the  affairs  and  business  of 
the  Bindery  has  satisfied  the  Committee  that  there  has 
been  great  mismanagement  in  this  department,  and  that 
serious  losses  have  occurred  therein. 


92  FIRST   MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

4.  That  the  general  management  and  business  of  the  Con- 
cern in  all  matters  involving  its  credit  or  integrity  is  such 
as  to  command  the  confidence  of  the  public. 

B,   F.   RAWLINGS,   Chairman. 

L.  M.  VERNON,  Secretai-y. 

After  the  above  report,  the  following  was 
adopted: 

Resolved,  1.  The  Committee  recommend  that  the  receiv- 
ing and  shipping  of  goods  be  by  an  entry  clerk,  and  the 
auditing  of  all  bills  by  a  proper  auditor  of  the  house. 

2.  That  the  time  of  all  employees  be  reported  to  the 
heads  of  the  departments  as  Bindery,  Printing  and  Clerical 
force,  and  a  regular  pay-roll  be  made  out  and  the  money 
paid  by  some  other  person  than  the  heads  of  the  depart- 
ments. 

3.  The  Retail  departments  of  the  Concerns,  East  and 
"West,  shall  be  put  under  such  checks  in  the  charging  of 
stock  and  crediting  sales  as  shall  fully  protect  it  from 
unwarrantable  exposure  to   mismanagement  and  fraud. 

Are  not  the  above  "  recommendations  "  a  con- 
fession that  none  of  these  safeguards  existed? 
I  ask  the  ministers  and  members  of  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church  whether  it  was  possible 
properly  to  conduct  the  immense  business  of  the 
house  without  them?  Goodenough  and  Hoff- 
man were  their  own  "entry  clerks,"  kept  their 
own  "pay-roll,"  "audited"  their  own  bills,  with 
no  more  oversight  than  there  is  oversight  of  any 
readers  of  this  narrative  when  they  purchase 
a  ticket  to  travel  on  a  railroad!  The  "no 
serious  loss"  and  "great  mismanagement  and 
serious  loss  "  declared  in  the  above  report,  were 
the  result  of  the  absence  of  all  those  safeguards. 
Yet  the  Committee  endorsed  and  commended 


FIRST   MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  93 

the  managemeiit!  Tliroughout  the  proceedings, 
the  purpose  of  the  majority  to  shield  the  Senior 
Agent  from  blame  was  apparent.  But  when 
the  report  was  made  public,  his  responsibility- 
was  made  so  obvious  to  the  mind  of  the  Church 
,that  a  demand  was  made  for  all  the  facts. 
Then  commenced  the  formation  of  a  powerful 
combination  to  conceal  all,  glorify  Thomas  Carl- 
ton, whitewash  Goodenough  and  Hoffman,  and 
crush  me,  as  will  appear  in  the  further  parts 
of  this  narrative. 


SECOND  MEETING  OF  COMMITTEE. 

The  first  report,  stating  that  there  had  been 
"no  serious  loss"  in  the  Printing  Department, 
but  "  great  mismanagement  and  serious  loss  "  in 
the  Bindery  Department,  created  a  widespread 
demand  throughout  the  Church  for  the  facts 
upon  which  the  report  was  made.  The  Massa- 
chusetts State  Convention  of  the  M.  E.  Church, 
held  at  Boston,  December  15th,  1869,  adopted 
the  following: 

Whereas,  Painful  and  alarming  rumors  have  spread  far 
and  wide  of  defalcations  in  the  management  of  our  Book 
Concern  in  New  York,  and 

Whereas,  The  late  report  of  the  Book  Committee  con- 
cerning the  same,  while  showing  that  these  rumors  are  not 
groundless,  is  manifestly  imperfect  and  unsatisfactory; 
therefore, 

Resolved,  That  we  respectfully  call  upon  the  said  Book 
Committee  for  a  full  report  of  such  facts  within  their 
knowledge  as  are  necessary  to  a  clear  understanding  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  great  interest  of  the  Church  has 
been  managed. 

Resolved,  That  we  urgently  request  the  Sub-committee 
of  Investigation  to  zealously  pursue  their  labor  to  the  extent 
necessaiy  to  a  full  understanding  of  thfi  affairs  of  tlie 
Concern. 

The  following  was  adopted  by  the  Texas  Con- 
ference: 

Whereas,  The  Book  Committee  made  a  report  at  its  late 
session,   in   New  York,    in   relation  to  alleged   losses  and 
94 


SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE.  95 

frauds  in  the  New  York  Book  Concern,   which   is  vague 
and   indefinite  in   its  terms,   therefore, 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  judgment  of  this  Conference  that 
the  said  report  should  be  reconsidered  by  the  Committee 
with  a  view  to  a  more  explicit  declaration  of  its  investi- 
gations. 

Resolved,  That  the  honor  of  the  Church  and  the  public 
faith  in  our  Book  Concern,  demand  the  vigorous  conduct 
of  such  investigation,  and  the  fearless  and  faithful  prose- 
cution of  criminal  parties  in  the  courts  of  the  Church,  or 
of  the  counti-y,  as  tbe  results  of  such  investigation  may- 
demand. 

Resolved,  The  Secretaiy  is  ordered  to  forward  to  the 
Book  Committee  a  copy  of  the  above  resolutions,  duly 
certified. 

GEO.   W.   HORNER,    Secretary. 

Texas  Annual  Conference  for  1870. 

It  now  became  obvious  that  the  Committee 
would  be  compelled  to  explain  their  brief  and 
evasive  report,  which,  instead  of  allaying,  in- 
creased the  excitement  started  by  the  article 
in  the  New  York  Times,  and  January  6,  1870, 
Kev.  C.  Brooks  published  in  the  Christian  Ad- 
vocate a  long  and  labored  article  in  defense  of 
"The  Report  of  the  Book  Committee."  After 
advising  that  t^e  Committee  meet  again  and 
agree  upon  "a  satisfactory  report,"  he  says  of 
the  former  meeting,  "there  was  no  lack  of  dili- 
gence on  the  part  of  the  Committee  in  the  en- 
deavors to  ascertain  the  facts,  the  amount  of 
losses,  and  the  perpetrators  of  the  frauds." 
As  to  the  "  amount  of  losses,"  I  had  stated  that 
they  had  averaged  from  |25,000  to  |30,000  a  year 
for  ten  years;  and  as  to  "the  perpetrators  of  the 
frauds,"  it  required  no  "endeavors"  to  ascertain 
that,  as  I  had  named  them  in    my  report,  and 


96  SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE. 

they  had  appeared  before  the  Committee  to  deny 
their  frauds.  Yet,  one  might  infer  from  the 
above  that  they  were  unknown. 

Dr.  Brooks  next  refers  to  the  authority  of  the 
Committee  to  "suspend  an  Agent,"  and  makes 
the  following  strange  statement: 

No  committee  of  prudent  men  would  take  such  a  step 
unless  in  an  extreme  case — not  unless  the  Concern  was  at 
stake.  Very  few  even  of  thoughtful  business  men  have 
counted  the  cost  of  suspending,  even  for  a  few  days,  one 
of  the  Agents  at  New  York,  just  at  this  time;  and  I  say  it 
deliberately  and  fully  understand  whereof  I  speak— such 
a  measure  would  cause  a  paralysis  extending  to  the  remot- 
est missionary  station  in  the  Church. 

As  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Missionary 
Society  matters  and  had  not  in  any  way  referred 
to  them  up  to  that  time,  the  above  could  not 
have  been  intended  to  apply  to  me;  not  only  so, 
but  subsequently,  I  was  twice  suspended,  and 
the  first  time  kept  in  that  degrading  position 
five  months,  and  no  "paralysis"  came  to  the 
Church,  nor  to  any  missionary  station.  Was  it 
beginning  to  dawn  on  the  apprehension  of  Dr. 
Brooks  and  his  associates  that  if  the  Church 
should  get  the  facts  which  they  had  concealed, 
another  Agent  at  New  York  than  John  Lana- 
han  would  have  to  be  suspended?  Evidently 
members  of  the  Book  Committee  had  been  made 
to  believe  that  the  suspension  of  the  Senior 
Agent  would  cause  the  predicted  "paralysis"! 
That  appears  to  be  the  only  explanation  of  the 
above  extraordinary  statement.  And  it  implies 
that  in  some  way  they  had  been  made  to  believe 


SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE.  97 

the  gTeat  Missionary  Society  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  was  dependent  on  the  Kev. 
Thomas  Carlton. 

But  another  Avay  of  escape  was  deliberately 
planned  to  save  the  gTeat  interests  of  Method- 
ism from  "a  paralysis  extending  to  the  remot- 
est missionary  station  of  the  Church,"  and  that 
was,  by  smnmoning  the  Committee  to  meet  again 
to  declare  first,  that  there  had  been  neither 
fraud,  loss,  nor  mismanagement.  Second,  to  re- 
quire the  Assistant  Agent  to  unite  in  the  denial, 
or  at  least  promise  to  say  nothing,  and  make  no 
report  to  the  General  Conference.  Third,  if  he 
refuse,  and  persist  in  his  allegations,  induce 
Goodenough  to  sue  for  libel  and  thus  frighten 
him  into  silence.  Fourth,  if  these  fail  to  bring 
him  into  submission,  get  up  charges  against  him 
and  suspend  him  from  his  office,  and  if  the 
Bishops  refuse  to  acquiesce  in  his  expulsion,  em- 
ploy the  official  press  and  threaten  to  abolish 
the  life  tenure  of  the  Episcopal  office.  That 
these  steps  followed  each  other  in  regular  order 
as  effect  follows  cause,  will  be  made  plain  in  the 
further  facts  of  this  narrative. 

On  the  12th  of  January,  1870,  the  Committee 
assembled  again,  professedly  to  examine,  but  it 
was  soon  made  apparent  that  the  real  object  was 
to  retract  their  former  report,  get  me  out  of  the 
Book  Concern,  and  whitewash  the  defrauders. 
The  following  letter  which  I  found  on  the  floor 
of  the  Agents'  office  early  in  the  meeting,  shows 
that  correspondence  had  been  had  which  fore- 


98  SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE. 

boded  evil  to  me.    Its  significance  justified  my 
copying-,  after  wliich  I  left  it  wliere  I  found  it. 

New  York,  December  22d,  1869. 
Rev.  F.  A.  Blades: 

Dear  Brother.— I  am  moi'e  and  more  of  opinion  that  Dr. 
Lanalian  has  injured  the  Book  Concern  a  hundred-fold 
more  than  any  other  person.  Of  course  he  has  not  intended 
to  do  it,  but  his  good  intentions  have  not  saved  him  from 
doing  a  world  of  mischief  to  our  time  honored  Book 
Concern. 

Yours   ti-uly,    GEO.   W.   WOODRUFF. 

The  previous  meeting  of  the  Committee,  at 
which  it  had  been  unanimously  declared  that 
there  had  been  "  great  mismanagement  and  ser- 
ious loss  "  adjourned  Nov.  18th.  Thus,  in  thirty- 
four  days,  the  writer  of  the  above  had  under- 
gone a  complete  revolution  of  opinion.  Perhaps 
the  demands  for  the  facts  which  were  "more 
and  more"  coming  from  different  parts  of  the 
Church  contributed  to  produce  the  change. 

The  Committee  adopted  the  rule  of  the  former 
meeting,  providing  for  secret  sessions,  and  that 
no  member  should  communicate  any  of  its  pro- 
ceedings without  tlie  consent  of  the  Committee. 
Kev.  Alexander  McLane,  who  had  served  as 
stenographei*  during  the  latter  part  of  the  for- 
mer meeting,  appeared  again.  I  objected  to 
his  further  serving  in  that  capacity  on  the 
ground  that  he  had  in  various  ways  made  him- 
self a  zealous  partisan,  and  had  declared  in  the 
New  York  preachers'  meeting  that  there  had 
been  no  fraud  or  mismanagement,  and  that  "  the 
animus"  of  my  charges  was  "  to  promote  lay  del- 


SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE.  99 

egation."  I  insisted  tliat  the  delicate  duties  of 
a  stenograplier  required  that  he  should  be  free 
from  all  bias,  much  more  from  partisanship.  My 
objection,  however,  received  no  attention,  and  he 
was  continued.  Dr.  Carlton  had  employed  him 
at  18.00  per  day.  Rev.  J.  W.  Eaton,  of  Troy 
Conference,  was  also  employed  by  Dr.  Carlton,  at 
the  same  compensation.  Both  of  those  gentle- 
men became  earnest  advocates  of  the  course  and 
action  of  the  Book  Committee  and  of  Dr.  Carlton. 
I  was  unable  to  appreciate  the  need  of  two  steno- 
graphers, but  Dr.  Carlton  did,  and  that  settled 
the  matter.  As  he  controlled  the  money  of  the 
Book  Concern  he  could  use  it  as  he  pleased,  and 
he  did  use  it  freely. 

When  the  reading  of  the  testimony  taken  at 
the  November  meeting  was  commenced.  Rev.  G. 
W.  Woodruif  stated,  that  "Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher, 
attorney  for  the  Book  Concern,"  was  in  the 
building  and  desired  to  be  present  and  hear  the 
testimony  read.  I  objected  on  the  ground  that 
Mr.  Fancher  had  denounced  me  in  public  and  in 
private,  and  had  grossly  insulted  me  at  my  own 
desk,  after  thrusting  himself  upon  me  for  an 
interview,  because  I  refused  to  sign  a  paper, 
written  by  himself,  for  publication,  which  de- 
nied that  there  had  been  any  fraud  in  the 
Book  Concern.  Dr.  Carlton  advocated  his  ad- 
mission, and  of  course  Dr.  Carlton's  wish  was 
granted.  If  Mr.  Fancher  was  "  attorney  for  the 
Book  Concern,"  then  he  was  attorney  for  Carlton 
&  Lanahan,  as,  properly  speaking,  they  were,  for 


100  SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE. 

the  time  being,  tlie  Book  Concern,  just  as  Messrs. 
Hunt  &  Eaton  are  now.  Thus,  Mr.  Fancher  be- 
came first  the  secret,  and  then  the  open  prosecu- 
tor of  one  of  his  own  clients!  Such  conduct  in  a 
civil  court  would  have  disbarred  him,  if  not  some- 
thing worse.  Resolutions  to  allow  me  to  employ 
counsel  were  tT\ice  voted  down.  I  then  determ- 
ined to  put  myself  upon  the  Committee's  records 
and  presented  the  following: 

To  the  Book  Committee:  January  27,  1870. 

Brethren.— As  you  have  invited  Mr.  Fancher  to  sit  with 
the  Committee,  as  an  attorney,  to  hear  the  testimony  read 
that  was  taken  at  your  November  meeting,  I  respectfully 
ask  the  privilege  of  inviting  an  attorney  to  be  present  at 
the  same  time  for  the  same  pui-pose. 

Respectfully,  J.   LANAHAN. 

The  above  was  promptly  laid  upon  the  table. 

It  was  soon  made  clear  that  Mr.  Fancher  had 
been  brought  there  not  "to  hear  the  testimony 
taken  at  the  former  meeting  read,"  but  to  assist 
the  Committee  to  get  me  out  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern. The  following  was  adopted:  "Resolved, 
that  Mr.  Fancher  be  requested  to  act  with  and 
assist  the  Committee,  and  the  Sub-committee,  in 
the  further  prosecution  of  their  work."  "  Prose- 
cution "  was  the  right  word  to  use.  Rev.  James 
Pike,  Chairman  of  the  Sub-committee,  refused  to 
serve  with  Mr.  Fancher  on  the  ground  that  Mr. 
Fancher  could  have  no  legitimate  connection 
with  the  Committee,  and  that  the  Committee  had 
no  authority  for  bringing  him  into  their  proceed- 
ings.   The  promptness  with  which  Dr.  Pike  was 


SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE.  101 

excused  sliowed  that  tliey  were  quite  willing;  to 
get  liim  out  of  tlie  way.  His  report  at  tlie  for- 
mer meeting  had  made  him  an  undesirable  inves- 
tigator. He  and  Dr.  Slicer  presented  the  follow- 
ing protest: 

The  undersigned  respectfully  enter  their  protest  against 
the  action  of  the  Book  Committee,  by  which  it  invited  the 
Attorney  of  the  Book  Concern  to  assist  the  Committee  in  its 
investigations  into  the  alleged  mismanagement  of  the  Book 
Concern. 

1.  Because  that  action  needlessly  disregarded  the  feel- 
ings and  protest  of  the  Assistant  Book  Agent  in  a  manner 
calculated  to  embarrass  him  in  his  intercourse  with  tlie 
Committee. 

2.  Because  we  fear  that  the  Committee  have  by  that  act 
subjected  themselves  to  the  imputation  of  having  in  effect 
employed  the  counsel  in  the  case  to  assist  in  conducting 
what  is  substantially  the  prosecution,  which  we  apprehend, 
will  excite  and  alarm  the  Church  and  bring  odium  upon  the 
Committee. 

H.   SLICER  AND  JAMES  PIKE. 

One  might  think  that  in  Tiew  of  the  above 
protest  Mr.  Fancher's  sense  of  propriety  would 
have  caused  him  to  retire  from  the  (Committee's 
proceedings,  but  he  did  "not  stand  on  techni- 
cality." He  had  been  brought  there  "to  assist 
the  Committee  in  the  further  prosecution  of  its 
work,"  and  expected  a  reward,  and  he  got  it, 
receiving  |1,000.00,  though  for  a  blind,  the 
entry  was  made  in  the  books  of  the  Concern 
"for  ten  years  services."  The  ridiculousness  of 
tliis  appears  on  its  surface.  How  much  more 
he  received  for  after  services  I  never  learned. 

After  all  the  testimony  had  been  read,  a  reso- 
lution was  adopted,  in  secret  session,  authorizing 


102  SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

me  to  bring  in  an  attorney  "provided  lie  be  a 
Methodist."    I  replied: 

New  York,  January  31,  1870. 
To  the  Book  Committee: 

Brethren.— I  have  received  a  communication  from  your 
secretary  informing  me  tliat  you  propose  now,  at  this  stage 
of  tlie  proceedings,  to  allow  me  to  bring  in  counsel,  "  pro- 
vided he  be  a  Methodist."  I  have  to  say  in  reply,  that  my 
application  for  counsel,  and  resolutions  to  grant  that  appli- 
cation were  twice  rejected  at  the  time  when  Mr.  Fancher 
was  admitted  to  the  meetings  of  the  Committee,  and  the 
testimony  was  as  yet  unread.  I  wished  my  counsel  to  be 
present  during  the  reading  of  the  testimony.  Your  invi- 
tation, coming  as  it  does  after  the  reading  of  the  testimony 
has  been  completed,  seems  to  me  most  extraordinary.  That 
part  of  the  proceedings  which  a  legal  adviser  should  have 
heard  has  already  been  disposed  of. 

I  had  not  thought  of  the  admission  of  counsel  to  the  ses- 
sions of  the  Committee  at  all,  and  was  more  than  surprised 
when  the  application  of  Mr.  Fancher  to  be  present  was 
presented  and  gi'anted.  I  informed  the  Committee  that 
Mr.  Fancher  had  made  himself  a  partisan  from  the  outset 
of  my  investigation,  and  had  spoken  strongly  in  public  and 
private  against  me.  He  was  nevertheless  admitted,  after 
a  speech  from  my  colleague  in  favor  of  his  admission. 

It  needs  but  a  moment's  consideration  to  show  the  utter 
unfairness  and  injustice  of  this  action.  You  have  exacted 
of  me  Avhat  was  not  required  even  of  the  expelled  employees 
who  have  wronged  the  House.  My  statements,  confirmed 
by  the  written  testimony  of  respectable  merchants  were 
refused,  until,  at  the  cost  of  great  inconvenience,  I  had 
brought  the  parties  in  person.  This  has  not  been  demanded 
of  the  expelled  parties.  They  have  been  allowed  to  ofCer 
their  own  words  without  any  corroboration,  except  second 
and  third  hand  testimony,  which  can  be  shown  to  be  false. 

In  the  name  of  the  Church,  whose  endangered  interests 
I  represent,  and  whose  sex'vant  I  am,  I  here  enter  my 
solemn  protest  against  these  wrongs  and  to  that  Church 
I  shall  make  my  appeal  for  justice. 

Very    respectfully,    J.    LANAHAN. 


SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE.  103 

Failing  in  tlieir  efforts  to  force  me  into  sub- 
serviency with  their  plans  of  concealment  they 
adopted  the  following — which  was  offered  by 
Rev.  J.  H.  Moore: 

Whereas,  Our  Book  Agents  have  not  been  under  charges 
before  this  Committee,  and  whereas,  they  are  not  convicted 
of  any  wrong  involving  their  official  or  moral  cliaracter, 
therefore. 

Resolved,  That  in  the  judgment  of  this  Committee,  it 
would  be  highly  improper  in  them,  or  either  of  them,  to 
go  to  the  General  Conference  with  a  statement  of  this  case, 
the  Committee  having  carefully  examined  and  decided  the 
whole  case.    (Journal  of  Committee,  Febioiary  9,  1870.) 

What  was  my  duty  in  such  case?  I  had  read 
of  men  who  rather  than  betray  their  trust  and 
sacrifice  the  truth,  had  laid  their  heads  upon  the 
block  and  smiled  as  the  axe  came  down;  and  of 
feeble  women,  who  in  like  circumstances,  braved 
the  stake  and  went  to  heaven  wrapped  in  robes 
of  fire.  Aud  should  I,  when  no  such  result  was 
impending,  and  no  such  sacrifice  was  possible, 
merely  to  retain  the  office  of  Book  Agent,  betray 
a  sacred  trust  and  disgrace  myself  in  my  own 
eyes?  What  think  ye,  pastors  and  laymen  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church?  If  that  was  not 
a  glaring  attempt  to  smother  the  truth,  what 
was  it? 

Finding  that  they  could  not  by  threats  of  sus- 
pension and  expulsion  drive  me  into  obedience 
to  their  plot  of  suppression,  and  evidently  fear- 
ing that  by  further  examination  I  should  find 
additional  evidence  of  new  and  much  greater 
frauds,  they  adopted  the  following: 


104  SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE. 

Resolved,  That  hereafter,  if  anything  shall  occur  in  the 
management  of  the  Book  Concern  that  may  require  si>ecial 
inquiry  or  investigation,  such  inquiry  or  investigation  shall 
be  made  conjointly  by  tlie  Agents,  assisted  by  tlie  Attorney 
for  the  Book  Concern. 

Where  did  they  get  authority  for  such  action? 
Certainly  not  in  any  law  of  the  Church.  The 
entanglements  in  which  they  had  become  in- 
volved made  them  see  and  feel  that  they  must  be 
a  law  unto  themselves,  and  act  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  self-protection  is  the  first  law  of  na- 
ture! I  had  not  asked  for  assistance,  nor  did 
I  need  it,  especially  of  that  kind.  If  the  Senior 
Agent,  who  had  been  at  the  head  of  the  estab- 
lishment nearly  twenty  years  needed  it,  the  Com- 
mittee should  have  confined  their  resolution  to 
him.  They  had  reason  to  know  that  the  attor- 
ney would  gladly  render  him  any  "assistance" 
he  might  need,  without  request  or  order  from 
them.    There  was  method  in  all  this  madness! 

But  it  evidently  occurred  to  the  Committee 
that  there  was  another  important  point  to  be 
guarded;  their  own  Sub-committee  could  not  be 
trusted,  especially  with  Kev.  James  Pike,  an- 
other "  enemy  of  the  Book  Concern,"  at  its  head, 
who  had  reported  several  ugly  things,  among 
them  the  loss  of  $21,000.00  in  the  single  item  of 
leather,  and  the  following  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  the  Sub-committee  be  and  is  hereby  in- 
structed to  avail  themselves  of  the  assistance  of  the  same 
parties  in  any  investigation  or  inquiry  they  may  be  under 
the  necessity  of  making. 


SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE.  105 

I  affirm  that  never  before  was  it  heard  of  that 
a  Sub-committee,  appointed  to  examine  accounts 
that  were  charged  to  be  fraudulent,  were  re- 
quired "to  avail  themselves  of  the  assistance" 
of  the  party  responsible  for  the  accounts.  And 
why  should  the  Sub-committee  be  required  to 
avail  themselves  of  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Fan- 
cher,  the  especial  friend  and  advocate  of  the 
party  whose  accounts  were  to  be  examined?  It 
is  not  strange  that  Rev.  Jas.  Pike,  Chairman, 
refused  to  act  under  such  requirements.  But, 
as  if  all  this  might  not  accomplish  the  end  in 
view,  and  as  if  they  could  not  trust  themselves, 
nor  the  Sub-committee,  the  following  was  adopt- 
ed: 

Resolved,  That  the  duties  of  this  Committee,  and  of  the 
Sub-committee  are  now  ended  concerning  the  boolcs  and 
papers  of  the  Boole  Concern  of  New  York  bearing-  date  up 
to,  and  prior  to  December  1,  1869. 

Dr.  Carlton  advocated  the  adoption  of  this  res- 
olution, and  insisted  that  the  continuance  of  the 
examination  would  interrupt  the  business  of 
the  house!  If  any  purely  secular  cor-poration, 
against  whose  management  charges  had  been 
made,  were  to  adopt  such  resolutions  and  meth- 
ods, what  would  the  public  say?  And  what  when 
it  was  the  publishing  house  of  the  Church !  Why 
was  the  Committee  so  careful  to  specify  the 
exact  date,  "up  to,  and  prior  to,"  behind  which 
no  investigation  of  "books  and  papers"  should 
be  made,  namely,  "  December  1st,  1869  "  ?  They 
were   manifestly   acting   under   instructions.    I 


106  SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE. 

had  laid  before  tliem  importaut  facts  prior  to 
that  date,  and  in  this  narrative  I  shall  present 
those  facts  with  many  others  of  date  more  than 
twelve  years  "prior  to  December  1st,  1869." 
These  men  were  in  wily  hands.  Whatever  they 
were  told  to  do,  they  did,  not  for  a  moment  sup- 
posing that  their  acts  ever  would  be  brought  to 
the  light  of  day.  And  in  all  probability  they 
never  should  but  for  the  declaration  of  Dr.  C.  C. 
McCabe,  quoted  above,  that  the  church  "never 
lost  a  dollar  by  one  of  its  Agents."  He  had  been 
making  much  stronger  statements  for  twenty 
years.  Of  course  he,  like  many  others  who  knew 
nothing  of  the  facts,  believed  what  he  said. 

Notwithstanding  the  Committee  had  declared: 
"the  testimony  not  only  failed  to  establish  the 
evidence  of  fraud,  defalcation,  or  corruption,  but 
likewise  failed  to  establish  the  allegation  of 
losses";  thus  giving  the  Agents  (Agent),  Goode- 
nougli  and  Hoffman  a  full  and  sweeping  endorse- 
ment, their  last  act,  before  final  adjournment, 
was  the  adoption  of  the  following,  which  was 
offered  by  Kev.  F.  A.  Blades: 

Resolved,  That  whatever  irregularities  have  been  dis- 
covered by  the  investigation  before  the  Committee,  are  the 
result  of  confiding  too  much  in  subordinates.  We  hereby 
call  the  attention  of  the  Agents  to  this  fact,  and  urge  upon 
them  gi-eater  personal  vigilance  in  personally  superintend- 
ing the  business  of  the  Concern. 

Was  there  ever  before,  or  since,  such  contra- 
diction? More  than  once,  yes,  many  times,  dur- 
ing the  six  meetings  of  that  Committee,  I  found 
myself  whispering  to  myself:    "Is  this  the  way 


SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE.  107 

it  was  done  in  tlie  old  Inquisition,  where  truth 
and  justice  were  trampled?  "  The  protests  of  the 
minority  amounted  to  nothing.  As  Dr.  Slicer 
expressed  it  in  his  address  before  the  Baltimore 
Conference  "I  had  just  as  well  whistled  to  a 
whirlwind,  or  talked  to  a  tornado."  The  Com- 
mittee had  met  for  a  very  definite  purpose,  and 
all  their  proceedings,  under  the  guide  of  the 
lawyer,  were  directed  toward  that  purpose. 
'Not,  indeed,  an  examination  of  the  crimes  of  the 
defrauders,  but  to  destroy  my  character,  as, — 
to  use  their  own  words, — "a  slanderer  of  the 
Book  Concern  and  its  long  trusted  employees," 
and  send  me  back  to  my  home  in  Baltimore  in 
disgrace.  After  clothing  Mr.  Fancher  with  au- 
thority "to  act  with  and  assist  in  the  further 
prosecution  of  the  work,"  the  Committee  ordered 
a  recess,  evidently  to  give  Mr.  Fancher  an  oppor- 
tunity to  bring  the  "  work  "  into  a  specific  shape. 
When  the  recess  ended,  a  resolution  was  adopted 
to  stop  the  further  investigation  of  mismanage- 
ment and  fraud,  and  the  following  distinct,  law- 
yer-like propositions  were  submitted: 

1.  With  respect  to  the  management  and  conduct  of  the 
Book  Agents,  or  either  of  them,  has  there  been  any  fraud 
or  corruption? 

2.  Has  there  been  any  fraud  or  corruption  in  any  em- 
ployee of  the  Book  Concern? 

3.  Has  there  been  heretofore  anything  in  the  conduct  of 
the  Agents,  or  either  of  them,  injurious  to  the  interests  of 
the  Book  Concern? 

4.  Is  there  anything  in  th,e  disposition  of  either  of  the 
Agents,  or  any  want  of  harmony  between  them,  which  calls 
for  the  action  of  the  Committee? 


108  SECOND  MEETING  OF  BOOK  COMMITTEE. 

It  was  easy  to  see  tlie  direction  in  whicli  these 
qnestions  pointed;  but  I  listened  in  silence,  not 
thinking  so  much  of  myself,  as  of  the  Church  of 
which  those  men  were  the  representatives !  The 
minority  cast  glances  at  each  other,  as  if  to  ask: 
"what  next?"  The  first  two  questions  were 
quicldy  disposed  of,  the  Committee  deciding  that 
there  had  been  "no  fraud  or  corruption  on  the 
part  of  either  of  the  Agents,  nor  of  any  em- 
ployee." 

The  third  question  was  taken  up,  and  the  ob- 
ject for  which  the  Committee  had  met  was  made 
perfectly  transparent,  namely,  to  find  ground 
for  charges  upon  which  to  suspend  me,  and  if 
that  failed,  by  personal  appeals  and  threats  of 
suspension  to  bring  me  into  acquiescence  mtli 
their  plans  of  suppression  and  concealment 
from  the  Church  of  the  iniquities  that  had  been 
committed. 

As  the  third  question  related  to  "the  Agents, 
or  either  of  them,"  the  reasonable  course,  one 
might  think,  should  have  been  to  begin  with 
the  Senior  Agent,  to  ascertain  whether  he  had 
"  done  anything  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the 
Book  Concern,"  especially  as  their  previous  re- 
port had  declared  that  "there  had  been  great 
mismanagement  and  serious  loss,"  and  more 
especially,  as  that  report  was  based  upon  the 
facts  I  had  laid  before  them,  showing  that  the 
"great  mismanagement  and  serious  loss"  had 
extended  through  a  long  series  of  years  before  I 
became  one  of  the  Agents.    But  they  were  not 


SECOND   MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  109 

after  the  senior  agent — I  was  the  object  of  their 
relentless  persecution. 

Although  they  had  in  their  hands  my  long  list 
of  the  facts  of  fraud,  and  the  Church  papers  and 
the  secular  press  had  been  filled  with  the  discus- 
sion of  the  subject  for  many  weeks,  the  Com- 
mittee now  called  in  numerous  persons  to  ascer- 
tain whether  I  had  said  anything  on  the  subject 
to  others  than  themselves.  Among  those  called 
were  Doctors  John  McClintock,  President,  and  B. 
H.  l!^adal.  Professor,  of  Drew  Theological  Semi- 
nary, to  both  of  whom  I  had  told  all  I  knew,  and 
they  so  stated.  Their  next  search  was  to  ascer- 
tain whether  I  had  inspired  the  criticisms  of  the 
secular  press.  For  that  purpose  they  requested 
Mr.  George  W.  Jones,  proprietor  of  the  New 
York  Times,  to  appear.  Rev.  George  W.  Wood- 
ruff said  to  Mr.  Jones :  "  Are  you  not  afraid  to 
attack  the  great  Methodist  Episcopal  Church?" 
He  replied:  "I  am  not  attacking  the  Methodist 
Church,  but  the  rogues  in  the  Church." 

Failing  in  their  hunt  for  something  against 
me,  and  perhaps  supposing  that  I  would  not  dare 
present  any  new  evidence  of  mismanagement 
and  fraud,  they  varied  their  proceedings  by  ask- 
ing the  Agents  if  they  had  anything  to  communi- 
cate? Dr.  Carlton,  as  usual,  answered  that  he 
had  no  communication  to  make.  I  thereupon 
presented  a  written  statement  of  a  false  entry  in 
the  ledger  of  |20,900,  charged  to  the  wealthy 
Banking  House  of  Brown  Brothers  &  Co.,  and 


110  SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

charged  off  as  a  loss;  which  I  characterized  as 
"  sometliing  more  than  improper."* 

I  also  presented  a  report  showing  a  discrep- 
ancy in  the  wages  account  of  S.  J.  Goodenough  of 
|1,900.  The  facts  of  this  case  are:  I  had  in  my 
employ  an  accountant,  whom  I  had  long  and 
well  known,  to  examine  the  wages  account  in 
the  Printing  Department  for  six  consecutive 
years,  and  gave  him  from  the  account  books  of 
the  Agents'  office  a  statement  of  the  amounts 
of  money  drawn  by  Goodenough.  Before  he 
had  progressed  far  in  the  examination,  he  re- 
ported to  me  a  discrepancy  of  |1,900  between 
the  amounts  that  had  been  drawn  and  the 
amounts  paid.  I  immediately  reported  it  to  the 
Book  Committee  then  holding  this  second  meet- 
ing, and  requested  a  special  examination  of  the 
discrepancy. 

Instead  of  giving  the  least  attention  to  my 
report,  the  Committee  referred  it  to  Dr.  Carlton. 
His  practice  had  been  to  write  nothing  in  reply 
to  my  charges,  but  to  indulge  in  verbal  state- 
ments. I,  therefore,  requested  that  he  be  re- 
quired to  reply  to  this  case  in  writing.  At  the 
afternoon  session  of  the  Committee,  he  reported 
verbally  that  "  the  discrepancy  amounted  to  only 
two  cents,  which  was  occasioned  by  mistaking 
a  figure  7  for  a  figure  9."  Upon  my  request,  the 
matter  was  referred  to  Dr.  Carlton  and  myself, 
vnth  the  understanding  that  we  should  meet  that 
evening,  mth  Mr.  Goodenough  and  my  account- 

*  For  full  account  of  this  case  see  Appendix  I. 


SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  HI 

ant  present,  the  result  to  be  reported  to  the  Com- 
mittee the  next  morning.  At  the  appointed 
hour,  I  and  my  accountant  were  on  hand,  at  the 
Agents'  ofllce,  only  to  learn,  however,  that  Dr. 
Carlton,  Goodenough  and  Grant,  the  book-keeper, 
had  been  there  and  professed  to  have  gone  over 
the  matter  in  our  absence.  With  what  result  I 
never  learned,  as  Dr.  Carlton  made  no  report  the 
next  morning,  nor  did  the  Committee  ask  for  one, 
or  even  refer  to  it. 

During  the  hours  of  that  day  a  plot  was  de- 
vised not  only  to  stop  a  further  examination  of 
Goodenough's  wages  account,  but  also  all  exami- 
nation, and  that  members  of  the  Book  Commit- 
tee yielded  themselves  willing  accomplices  of  the 
conspiracy,  the  following  facts  show. 

The  next  morning,  as  soon  as  the  Committee 
met,  the  following  paper  was  presented: 

We,  the  undersigned  members  of  the  Book  Committee, 
having  occasion  to  visit  the  Book  Concern,  at  200  Mulberry 
Street  last  evening,  had  our  attention  called  to  certain 
papers  lying  promiscuously  about  the  rooms  of  the  building. 
On  examination  they  were  found  to  be  papers  of  value  and 
vouchers  of  important  transactions  in  the  Concern.  On 
further  inquiry,  we  found  the  confusion  of  the  papers  to 
which  our  attention  had  been  called  to  result  from  the  con- 
duct of  a  stranger  known  as  an  expert,  who  seemed  to  be 
in  possession  of  the  vouchers  and  making  free  use  of  them. 
We  found  also  that  the  vouchers  had  been  substantially  in 
the  same  condition  several  days,  and  the  room  in  which 
they  were  found  was  accessible  to  parties  interested  in 
them,  and  consequently  liable  to  loss.  We  deem  it  our 
duty  to  state  th^se  facts,  leaving  the  Committee  to  take 
such  action  In  the  premises  as  the  case  may  require. 

.T.  H.  MOORE,    C.  BROOKS, 
I.  S.  BINGHAM,  F.  A.  BLADES. 


112  SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

Kev.  L.  M.  Vernon  was  also  in  company  with 
tlie  above,  bnt  refused  to  sign  their  paper. 

Immediately  upon  the  presentation  of  the 
above,  the  following  resolution — ^in  readiness  for 
the  occasion — was  presented  and  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  hereafter,  and  during  the  pending  of  this 
investigation,  no  papers,  bills  or  account  books  shall  be 
subjected  to  examination,  or  handled  by  any  one,  but  by 
the  concurrent  consent  and  knowledge  of  both  the  Agents, 
together  with  the  approval  and  knowledge  of  this  Com- 
mittee, except  by  such  clerks  and  book-keepers  as  are  now 
on  duty  in  the  Concern,  in  the  regular  discharge  of  their 
duty. 

Whilst  the  above  was  pending,  I  was  called 
out  of  the  Committee  room  by  my  accountant, 
who  stated  to  me  that  the  previous  evening, 
when  quitting  work,  he  had,  as  was  his  practice, 
carefully  put  the  papers  he  was  examining  on  the 
open  shelf  where  they  had  been  kept,  and  that  on 
returning  that  morning  he  found  them  scattered 
over  the  floor.  I  returned  to  the  room  and  re- 
ported these  facts  to  the  Ck)inmittee,  and  request- 
ed that  he  be  permitted  to  make  his  state- 
ment to  them.  My  request  was  resolutely  op- 
posed by  the  signers  of  the  above  paper.  Dr. 
Slicer  seconded  my  request  and  said,  "It  would 
be  an,  outrage  upon  all  fair  dealing  to  refuse  to 
hear  the  accountant."  Kev.  J.  H.  Moore,  who 
appeared  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  conspiracy, 
said  to  Dr.  Slicer:  "Do  you  want  to  make  the 
signers  of  the  paper  liars?"  Dr.  Slicer  replied: 
"Some  person  may  have  scattered  those  papers 
for  a  purpose."    The  Committee  refused  to  hear 


SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  113 

my  accountaiit,  but  called  in  Kev.  W.  H.  DePuy, 
who  corroborated  the  statements  of  the  signers 
of  the  paper.  The  Committee  had  no  fear  that 
he  would  "make  the  signers  of  the  paper  liars." 
He  could  be  trusted,  because  it  was  not  the  first 
time,  nor  was  it  the  last,  in  which  he  rendered 
important  service  to  the  Committee  in  the  crises 
of  their  wonderful  doings. 

Within  two  hours  after  the  above  occurrences, 
I  gathered  the  following  facts:  After  the  pre- 
sentation of  my  report  of  the  discrepancy  of 
11,900,  Kev.  W.  H.  DePuy  went  to  the  old  build- 
ing, 200  Mulberry  Street,  and  told  Henry  Umber, 
whose  business  it  was  to  lock  up  the  house,  to 
keep  it  open  that  night,  and  that  some  members 
of  the  Book  Committee  would  be  there  between 
eight  and  nine  o'clock.  Mr.  Daniel  Denham, 
Cashier,  and  brother-in-law  to  Dr.  Carlton,  went 
to  the  hotel  at  which  the  above  named  members 
of  the  Committee  stayed,  and  piloted  them  to 
200  Mulberry  Street  to  see  the  "Scattered  pa- 
pers." 

If  "the  papers  had  been  substantially  in  the 
same  condition  several  days,"  is  it  not  remark- 
able that  it  was  not  reported  to  the  Book  Com- 
mittee at  least  one  day  prior  to  my  report  of  the 
above  discrepancy  in  Goodenough's  wages  ac- 
count? "Between  eight  and  nine  o'clock"  at 
night,  about  the  13th  of  January,  was  not  a 
pleasant  time  to  go  on  such  a  mission  to  the  old 
building  on  Mulberry  Street.  The  trick  was 
more  bunglingly  done  than  was  usually  the  case, 


114  SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

when  W.  H.  DePuy  was  co-manager,  Perliaps 
my  report  of  the  morning  caused  the  necessity 
for  hurried  action  to  prevent  tlie  discovery  of 
additional  discrepancies  in  tlie  wages  accoimt  of 
the  much  trusted  Goodenougli.  But  this  is  not 
all — the  signers  of  the  above  paper  unwittingly 
furnished  additional  proof  of  what  I  had  previ- 
ously alleged,  namely,  that  "  papers  of  value,  and 
vouchers  of  important  transactions  in  the  Con- 
cern" were  not  kept  on  file  in  the  oifice  of  the 
Agents,  hut  were  left  in  the  keeping  of  employees 
who  did  the  purchasing  of  the  materials.  Dr. 
Carlton  declared  before  the  Committee  that 
"those  papers  and  vouchers  represented  several 
hundred  thousand  dollars." 

My  presentation  of  the  false  entry  in  the 
ledger  to  "Brown  Brothers  &  Co.,"  and  the  dis- 
crepancy in  Goodenough's  wages  account,  ap- 
peared to  anger  some  of  the  Committee,  and  a 
more  direct  personal  attack  was  commenced. 
Kev.  B.  F.  Rawlings,  Chairman,  who  was  always 
one  of  the  most  assuming  and  presuming,  invited 
me  out  of  the  room,  and  said:  "I  have  invited 
you  out  here  to  request  you  to  resign."  I  replied, 
"I  am  here  without  my  seeking,  and  will  not 
resign,  much  as  I  dislike  the  place."  He  then 
said :  "  I  will  make  the  request  from  the  Chair." 
I  responded:  "  You  may  make  it  from  a  hmidred 
chairs,  it  will  have  no  effect  upon  me,  come  what 
may."  On  returning  to  the  room,  I  thought  I 
saw  evidence  that  some  of  the  Committee  knew 
the  object  of  the  interview,  and  were  anxious  to 


SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  115 

know  the  result.  On  resuming  tlie  cliair,  he  said: 
"  Is  Dr.  Lanahan  disposed  to  hush  up  the  matter? 
If  not,  other  things  must  come  before  us."  1 
made  no  reply,  but  fidly  comprehended  what  he 
meant  by  the  "other  things." 

H.  K.  Hoffman  had  been  so  thoroughly  in- 
volved in  contradictions  when  he  appeared  be- 
fore the  Committee,  at  their  former  meeting, 
that  he  refused  to  appear  at  this;  but,  unfortu- 
nately for  him  and  his  advisers,  he  sent  word 
by  Dr.  Carlton,  that  if  the  Committee  desired 
any  further  information  from  him,  their'  ques- 
tions must  be  propounded  in  writing. 

The  following  is  from  the  records  of  the  Com- 
mittee: "Messrs.  Pike,  Moore  and  Vernon  were 
appointed  a  Committee  to  furnish  Mr.  Hoffman 
a  written  statement  of  matters  connected  with 
the  Committee's  investigation  in  which  he  is 
involved." 

Feb.  1st,  The  Committee  appointed  to  give  Mr. 
Hoffman  a  statement  on  which  information  was 
needed  from  him  reported  the  following,  and  a 
copy  was  sent  to  Mr.  Hoffman,  as  follows: 

New  York,   January  30,  1870. 
H.  R.  Hoffman,  Esq.: 

Dear  Sir. — The  Committee  desire  information  from  you 
on  the  following  points: 

1.  The  Sub-committee  reported  a  deficit  of  about  1400 
dozen  of  skins  between  December,  1867  and  September  1, 
1869.    How  can  you  account  for  this  deficit? 

2.  What  account  can  j-ou  give  for  141  dozen  of  sheep 
skins  sent  from  the  Book  Concern  by  your  order  about 
March,   1869? 

3.  The  bills  show  that  you  purchased  in  December,  1868, 


116  SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

between  twenty-five  and  twenty-six  hundred  pounds  of 
glue.  Can  you  show  that  said  glue  was  ever  received  at 
the  Bindery,  and  if  so,  how  was  it  used? 

4.  It  is  reported  to  us  that  you  bought  at  one  time  four 
yards  of  black  velvet,  at  $16  per  yard;  at  another  time  four 
yards,  at  $17  per  yard.    What  became  of  it? 

5.  In  1869  six  pieces  of  shirting  muslin  came  to  the 
Book  Concern  from  Lord  &  Taylor.  Can  you  show  how  it 
was  used? 

6.  On  at  least  two  occasions,  Mr.  Myers  receipted  for 
more  money  than  he  received.  Can  you  give  the  reasons 
for  these  facts? 

7.  Several  other  discrepancies  appear  between  the 
amounts  due  on  wages  and  the  amounts  receipted  for.  Can 
you  explain  these  discrepancies? 

8.  Can  you  explain  the  use  made  of  various  sums  of 
money  drawn  from  the  Bindery  Department  for  miscel- 
laneous articles? 

9.  Can  you  give  any  definite  account  of  the  amount  of 
gold  sweepings  accruing  in  the  Bindei-y  Department 
monthly  or  yearly,  or  their  value? 

10.  It  appears  that  the  names  of  several  parties  were 
retained  on  the  pay-roll  after  they  had  ceased  to  be  em- 
ployed, as  shown  by  the  books  of  the  head  of  the  folding 
department.    Can  you  show  the  propriety  of  such  things? 

11.  Do  you  know  of  any  record  showing  that  goods  bought 
for  the  Bindery  were  duly  received,  and  if  received,  that 
they  corresponded  in  quality  and  quantity  with  the  goods 
purchased? 

12.  Can  you  give  an  account  of  a  certain  lot  of  morocco, 
about  forty  dozen,  purchased  by  you  of  Mr.  Lutkins  for 
the  Bindery,  which  were  afterward  exposed  for  sale  in  a 
tin-shop  on  Pearl  Street,  295y2? 

13.  You  are  shown  by  parties  who  have  been  before  us 
to  have  received  commissions  on  materials  purchased  for 
the  Bindery.  On  what  ground  do  you  justify  this  pro- 
cedure? 

Respectfully,  L.  M.  VERNON, 

Sec.  of  Book  Committee. 

No  answer  was  received  to  any  of  the  above 
questions,  and  the  Committee  said  nothing  about 
Hoffman's  silence. 


SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  117 

A  Sub-committee  previously  appointed,  pre- 
sented for  adoption  the  following  report  to  be 
sent  to  the  Annual  Conferences.  Without  as- 
signing any  reasons  for  the  change,  they  revers- 
ed the  decision  of  the  preceding  November,  and 
all  the  following  questions  were  answered  in  the 
negative : 

1.  In  respect  to  the  management  or  conduct  of  the 
Agents,  or  either  of  them,  has  there  been  anything  fraudu- 
lent or  corrupt  in  the  Book  Concern? 

2.  Has  there  been  anything  fraudulent  or  corrupt  in  the 
practice  or  conduct  of  any  employee  of  the  Book  Concern 
so  far  as  the  Printing  Department  is  concerned? 

3.  Has  thei-e  been  anything  fraudulent  or  corrupt  in  the 
practice  or  conduct  of  any  employee  in  the  Book  Concern 
in  respect  to  the  Bindery? 

These  questions  in  the  estimation  of  the  Committee  em- 
braced all  the  allegations  made  against  the  Book  Concern, 
its  Agents  and  employees;  and  in  the  settlement  of  them 
every  item  in  any  way  affecting  the  Concern  was  most 
fully  investigated.  The  Committee  could  not  find  other- 
wise than  that  the  testimony  not  only  failed  to  establish 
the  evidence  of  fraud,  defalcation,  or  corruption,  but  like- 
wise the  allegation  of  losses. 

They  could  not  have  given  the  management  by 
the  Agents,  and  the  faithfulness  and  integrity 
of  all  the  employees  a  stronger  endorsement. 
The  object  of  this  sweeping  denial  was  to  escape 
being  questioned  if  they  again  admitted  that 
any  wrongs  had  been  committed. 

Contrary  to  all  custom,  the  minority  had  been 
denied  representation  on  the  Committee,  and 
gave  notice  that  they  would  present  a  dissenting 
report  the  next  day.  The  following  are  some  of 
the  reasons  they  assigned  for  tlieir  dissent: 


118  SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

We,  the  undersigned  members  of  tlie  Book 
Committee,  respectfully  dissent  from  the  report 
of  the  majority,  adopted  yesterday,  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons: 

1.  Because  nothing  h.as  come  before  us  during  our  present 
session  to  relieve  our  convictions  of  losses  and  mismanage- 
ment in  the  Book  Concem,  so  insufficiently  expressed  in 
the  Committee's  report  in  November  last. 

2.  Because,  from  testimony  before  the  Committee,  it 
appears  that  the  Book  Agents,  for  a  series  of  years,  pur- 
chased a  very  large  part  of  their  paper  from  or  through  a 
middle-man  or  paper  broker,  who  represented  himself  to 
paper  manufacturers  as  controlling  the  purchase  of  paper 
for  the  Book  Concern,  and  whose  relation  to  one  of  the 
Agents  gave  special  credibility  to  his  representations,  and 
who  also  represented  himself  to  the  Book  Concern  as  the 
accredited  agent  of  certain  leading  manufactui-ers.  This 
method  of  purchases  appears  to  us  discreditable,  and  almost 
of  necessity,   damaging  to  the  house. 

3.  Because  the  testimony  before  the  Committee  shows 
that  this  system  actually  was  damaging  to  the  Book  Con- 
cern. The  Agents  have  bought  since  1860  from  or  through 
the  above  named  middle-man  paper  to  the  amount  of  nearly 
,«;700,000:  from  him  direct  about  $350,000,  through  him  as 
a  broker  about  $350,000.  The  "  statement  "  of  the  Assistant 
Agent  to  the  Committee,  coiToborated,  as  it  is,  by  docu- 
ments drawn  from  the  books  of  the  dealers  referred  to, 
and  also  from  the  Order  Book  of  the  Printing  Department 
of  the  ^lethodist  Book  Concern,  clearly  shows  that  on 
sales  to  the  Book  Concern,  amounting  to  $63,699.16,  betAveen 
July,  1867,  and  August,  186S,  the  profit  accruing  to  the 
above-named  "  broker  "  was  $6,805.04;  and  that  ducing  the 

same  period  his  commissions  on  purchases  made  from ,* 

amounted  to  $3,040.28.  Between  August,  1868,  and  June, 
1869,  he  received  from  those  two  houses  commissions 
amounting  to  $5,765.55  on  paper  ordered  directly  from  the 
Book  Concem.  We  give  these  as  specimens  only,  not  pre- 
tending to  say  what  was  the  whole  amoimt  of  profits  and 
commissions  on  the  entire  sum  of  nearly  $700,000. 

5.  Because  no  evidence  in  rebuttal  of  the  above  state- 

*Several  letters  of  paper  dealers  accompanying  the  minority  report 
have  already  been  given  in  this  narrative. 


SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  119 

meuts  was  laid  before  the  Committee  except  to  the  effect 
that  the  purchase  of  paper  through  middle-men  was  not 
uufi'equent.  Moreover,  an  assertion  was  made  to  the  Com- 
mittee that  prices  paid  by  the  Concera  for  paper  were  as 
low  as  those  paid  by  other  publishing  houses.  But  the 
testimony  showed,  1.  That  the  purchase  of  paper  through 
brokers  is  the  exception,  and  not  the  rale;  that  especially 
in  lai'ge  establishments,  the  usage  is  to  purchase  directly 
from  manufacturers;  and,  2.  That  even  where  brokers  are 
employed  the  commission  paid  is  rarely  over  one  per  cent. 
As  to  comparative  prices  paid  by  the  Book  Concern  and 
other  houses,  it  was  conclusively  shown  that  no  clear  proof 
is  possible  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  And,  more- 
over, our  concern  is  not  what  other  houses  paid  for  paper, 
but  what  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  might  have  bought 
it  for. 

6.  Because,  in  our  judgment,  based  upon  testimony  before 
us,  the  following  losses  have  occurred  in  the  Bindery: 

1.  In  leather,  from  December  1,  1867,  to  September  1, 
1869,  bought  by  the  Book  Concern,  but  not  accounted  for 
or  shown  to  have  been  used  in  the  Bindery,  about  $20,000. 

2.  Also  within  nine  months,  from  December  1,  18G8,  in 
the  item  of  glue,  paid  for  and  not  accounted  for,  about 
$800. 

7.  Because  we  believe  that  funds  of  the  Book  Concern 
have  been  sacrificed  and  placed  in  jeopardy  by  the  appro- 
priation of  the  gold-sweepings  to  the  head  of  the  Bindeiy 
as  a  perquisite  instead  of  a  small  supplement  to  his  salary. 
For  several  years  the  purchases  of  gold-leaf  have  aver- 
aged over  $8,000  per  year,  and  the  gold-sweepings  have 
amounted,  we  are  convinced,  to  at  least  fifteen  per  cent, 
of  the  whole  purchase,  making  annually  at  least  $1,200. 
Any  employee  is  dangerously  tempted  when  his  careless 
use  of  costly  materials  results  in  the  increase  of  his  own 
salaiy. 

For  the  above  reasons,  not  to  name  others,  we  feel 
ourselves  compelled  to  present  this  minority  report;  and 
we  further  feel  ourselves  compelled  to  say,  that  the 
methods  of  making  purchases  in  the  Printing  Department, 
tlie  methods  of  paying  wages  and  keeping  accounts  thereof 
in  the  Bindery,  and  the  methods  of  checking  invoices  of 
goods  received,  have  been  defective,  and  likely,  therefore, 
to  lead  to  losses.  We  at  the  same  time  express  our  firm 
belief  and  hope  that  the  Book  Committee's  investigations 


120  SECOND  MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE. 

have  so  far  awakened  attention,  and  will  lead  to  such 
improvements  in  the  methods  of  business,  that  the  Book 
Concern  will  be  secured  to  a  very  great  extent  against 
the   possibility   of   similar   irregularities   and   losses    liere- 

^^*^^'  •  •  •  HENRY   SLICER, 

JAMES  PIKE, 
L.  M.  VERNON. 
New  York,  February  10,  1870.* 

The  Committee  by  a  resolution  refused  to  re- 
ceive the  report  of  the  minority,  claiming  that 
they  had  no  right  to  make  it.  Dr.  Slicer  then 
took  it  from  the  Secretary's  table  and  put  it  in 
his  pocket.  The  Committee  then  reconsidered 
its  action  and  adopted  the  following: 

Resolved,  That  a  paper  called  a  minority  report  offered 
by  Messrs.  Slicer,  Pike  and  Vernon  be  received  and  filed 
with  the  papers  of  the  Committee,  to  be  forwarded  to  the 
General  Conference. 

The  object  of  this  resolution  was  to  suppress 
the  minority  report,  and  prevent  it  going  with 
that  of  the  majority  to  the  approaching  Annual 
Conferences.* 

*The  Christian  Advocate  of  April  24,  1870,  designated 
the  above  as  the  "  keynote "  of  an  "  outburst  of  brazen 
harmony,"  and  said:  ....  "That  mischievous  missive 
begins  its  evil  work  by  assuming  for  itself  the  style  and 
title  of  a  Minority  Report  of  the  Book.  Committee.  That 
body  however  is  known  only  in  its  individuality — one  and 
indivisible — and  therefore  a  minority  report  is  an  absurdity. 
The  paper  therefore  is  without  legal  status;  the  unoffical 
utterance  of  its  authors;  but  not  therefore  any  the  less 
potent  for  mischief." 

The  above  needs  no  comment. 

*  For  action  of  Baltimore  Conference,  and  Dr.  Slicer's 
account  of  their  treatment  of  minority  and  their  report, 
see  Appendix  II. 


SECOND   MEETING   OF  BOOK   COMMITTEE.  121 

Kev.  J.  H.  Moore  said,  "Tlie  minority  has 
forced  upon  us  tlie  consideration  of  another  mat- 
ter. I  had  hoped  that  the  Committee  would  be 
unanimous,  but  the  minority  report  has  disap- 
pointed me,  and  we  must  now  proceed  to  another 
question." 

Kev.  Geo.  W.  Woodruff,  with  much  emphasis, 
said,  "The  enemy  has  gotten  into  the  citadel  of 
the  Church,  and  must  be  gotten  out." 

Kev.  B.  F.  Eawlings  left  the  Chair  and  said, 
"Can  we  say  that  Dr.  Lanahan  will  make  uo 
further  investigation  into  these  matters?  If  not, 
it  is  time  to  act.  We  have  but  one  thing  to  do, 
and  that  is  to  go  forward." 

Mr.  Woodruff  again  spoke,  and  said,  "The 
action  of  the  minority  makes  it  necessary  for  us 
to  go  back  to  our  original  purpose." 

J.  H.  Moore  then  addressed  me  directly,  and 
said,  "Will  you  promise  not  to  report  these 
things  to  the  General  Conference?" 

I  cannot  put  upon  paper  the  exhibitions  of 
passion  accompanying  all  this,  to  which  I  listen- 
ed in  silence. 


THIED  MEETING  OF  GEIS^EKAL  COM- 
MITTEE. 

Matters  had  now  reached  a  stage  when  formal 
action  was  found  necessary  to  cover  up  the 
frauds,  which  could  best  be  done  by  starting 
formal  proceedings  to  get  me  out  of  the  Concern, 
and  the  following  "  private  "  notice  for  a  meeting 
of  the  Committee  for  May  19th,  1870  was  issued. 

[PRIVATE  NOTICE.] 

To  the  Book  Committee: 

Deiir  Brethren. — 1  have  received  a  paper  containing 
cliarges  and  specifications  against  Rev.  John  Lanahan, 
D.  D.,  Assistant  Booli  Agent  of  the  Metliodist  Book  Concern, 
to  which  your  attention  should  be  called. 

The  charges  are:  1.  Official  misconduct  and  malfeasance. 
2.  Neglect  of  official  duty.  3.  Untruthfulness,  irascihility, 
slanderous  disposition,  and  other  objectionable  personal 
characteristics,  which  unfit  him  for  the  position  of  Assis- 
tant Book  Agent.  4.  Insubordination  to  his  official  supe- 
riors—the Book  Committee — and  violation  of  his  pledges 
to  them.  5.  Want  of  business  qualifications  and  capacity 
for  the  discharge  of  his  official  duties  as  such  Assistant 
Book  Agent. 

Under  these  charges  there  are  altogether  twenty-nine 
specifications. 

Accompanying  the  charges  and  specifications  is  the  fol- 
lowing  request: 

"  We,  the  undersigned  ministers  and  members  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  to  convene  and  take  action 
122 


THIRD  MEETING    OF   GENERAL,  COMMITTEE.  123 

on  the  above  charges  and  specifications  as  soon  as  practi- 
cable. 
"  (Signed,) 

MINISTERS. 
David    Graves,    Newark    Conference.  * 

Jacob  r.  Fort,         " 
Geo.  F.  Dickinson,  "  " 

J.   Cowens,  "  " 

D.  Walters, 

H.  F,  Pease,  Presiding  Elder,  Nev^  York  East  Confer- 
ence. 
W.  K.  Evans,  New  York  East  Conference. 
Geo.  Taylor,  Pastor  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  Flush- 
ing,  and   others. 

LAYMEN. 
J.  W.  AUison,   Yonkers  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
C.   H.   Fellows,   Brooklyn. 

Orange  Judd,  Flushing  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 
Jas.  R.  Edwards,  Trinity  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 

New   York. 
Jno.  O.  Hoyt,  Elizabeth,  St.  Paul's  Methodist  Episcopal 

Church. 
Joseph   K.    Knapp,    St.    John's,    Brooklyn. 
H.  D.  Rolph,  St.  Paul's,  Elizabeth,  New  Jersey." 
The  Committee  can  only  be  called  together  by  the  Chair- 
man, at  the  request  of  four  of  its  members,  and  said  mem- 
bers are  to  designate  the  time  and  place.    I  suggest  May 
19th  as  the  time,  in  case  it  is  thought  best  to  meet. 
Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  F.  RAWLINGS,  Chairman. 
Indianapolis,    Ind.,    April  27,   1870. 

The  required  number  signed  tlie  request  for 
tlie  call. 

Of  this  meetiug  I  had  no  knowledge  save  from 
private  rumor,  until  the  Committee  met,  al- 
though their  coming  was  known  to  some  of  the 
employees  of  the  house.  A  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers did  not  come  into  the  office  of  the  Agents, 


124  THIED   MEETING    OF   GBNEIIAL   COMMITTEE. 

but  went  directly  to  the  room  in  which  tlieir 
meetings  were  held,  some  of  them  having  been 
to  the  office  of  their  lawyer,  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher,  to 
get  instructions  as  to  how  to  proceed.  They 
came  unheralded,  and  for  what?  All  I  knew 
was  that  a  heavy  blow  was  intended,  which 
might  fall  upon  me  at  any  moment — when  or 
how,  I  could  only  guess.  It  soon  appeared,  how- 
ever, that  the  object  of  their  mysterious  assemb- 
ling was  the  suspension  of  John  Lanahan,  As- 
sistant Agent.  Instead  of  there  being  a  prose- 
cution of  the  defrauders,  who  had  enriched  them- 
selves at  the  expense  of  the  property  and  honor 
of  the  Church,  I  was  to  be  held  up  before  the 
world  as  the  criminal.  It  turned  out  that  they 
had  been  summoned  to  try  a  long  list  of  charges 
against  me;  but  I,  the  person  most  interested, 
had  received  no  notice  of  such  charges.  A  pam- 
phlet purporting  to  contain  charges  had  been 
sent  to  me  through  the  mail  anonymously,  and 
without  explanation — ^I  do  not  know  to  this  day 
by  whom  it  was  sent.  The  charges  were  signed 
by  sixteen  persons  outside  the  Book  Concern, 
three-fourths  of  whom  were  entire  strangers 
to  me,  and  related  to  matters  of  which  they 
could  have  no  personal  knowledge.  One  charge 
related  to  certain  pledges  alleged  to  have  been 
given  by  me  to  the  Book  Committee,  of  which, 
whether  true  or  false,  the  outside  public  could 
know  nothing  whatever.  The  charges  were  en- 
tertained by  the  Committee  without  a  word  of 
communication  with  me.    Four  of  the  signers 


THIRD   MEETING    OF   GENERAL   COMMITTEE.  125 

appeared  before  tlie  Committee,  Eev.  H.  F.  Pease, 
J.  C.  Ockerliausen,  J.  E.  Edwards  and  C.  H.  Fel- 
lows, with  three  of  w^hom  I  had  not  the  slightest 
acquaintance.  With  the  Rev.  H.  F.  Pease  I  had 
no  acquaintance  beyond  the  merest  civility  when 
we  casually  met  in  the  Book  Concern.  I  had 
never  been  in  his  company  on  any  business  mat- 
ter, nor  socially  five  minutes.  Dr.  Slicer,  of  Bal- 
timore, questioned  these  men  who  had  signed  as 
to  their  personal  knowledge  concerning  the  mat- 
ters referred  to  in  the  charges.  Mr.  Ocker- 
hausen  said:  "I  know  nothing  personally.  I 
signed  upon  the  representation  of  others." 
Messrs.  Fellows  and  Edwards  said  the  same; 
Rev.  Mr.  Pease  said,  "  some  things  I  know  per- 
sonally, others  I  know  from  report." 

Dr.  Slicer  then  asked  Mr.  Pease  as  to  his  per- 
sonal knowledge  of  the  matters  referred  to  in 
the  fourth  specification  of  the  "fifth  charge," 
as  follows: 

In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Book  Agent,  during  his  term 
of  office,  occasioned  losses  and  falling  off  in  the  business 
profits  of  the  establishment  by  his  aforesaid  and  unwar- 
rantable and  public  imputations  against  the  Book  Concern, 
its  management,  and  employees,  and  by  his  aforesaid 
unwarrantable  refusal  to  contradict  the  said  libelous  arti- 
cle in  the  New  York  Times,  and  the  damaging  sanction 
he  has  given  to  the  damaging  imputations  of  that  article. 

The  Chairman  ruled  the  question  out  as  irrele- 
vant. He  evidently  did  not  want  the  fact 
brought  out  that  Dr.  Carlton  was  the  informant 
of  Mr.  Pease.    After  the  Committee  had  held 


120  THIRD   MEETING    OF    GENERAL   COMMITTEE. 

three  sessions  and  entertained  the  charges,  I  was 
called.  The  chairman  said,  "  I  suppose  you  have 
been  notified  that  charges  have  been  preferred 
against  you?"  I  answei'ed  that  I  had  received 
no  notice.  He  said,  "Have  you  not  received 
what  purported  to  be  charges?"  I  answered 
that  I  had.  He  then  said,  "  They  are  the  same." 
I  asked  him  if  he  had  sent  them?  He  said  he 
had  not.  He  then  asked  me  if  I  had  anything 
to  say  about  the  charges  I  responded  that  I 
had  nothing  to  say.  I  supposed  he  wanted  to 
know  whether  I  would  plead  "guilty,  or  not 
guilty."  That,  I  believe,  is  the  usual  course  of 
procedure  in  criminal  courts,  and  the  Committee 
was  now  acting  under  the  advice  of  Lawyer 
Fancher. 

The  Committee  remained  in  session  a  little 
more  than  three  days,  discussing  resolutions  in 
regard  to  my  suspension  and  trial.  At  the  same 
time  they  and  their  helpers  were  active  in  the 
use  of  varied  means,  resorting  to  both  threats 
and  persuasions,  to  get  ine  to  resign  or  promise 
that  I  would  say  nothing  further  about  the 
frauds.  They  went  so  far  as  to  induce  Kev. 
Bishop  Janes,  resident  in  New  York,  and  Kev. 
Dr.  K.  S.  Foster,  then  President  of  Drew  Semi- 
nary, and  now  one  of  the  Bishops  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  resident  in  Boston,  Mass.,  to  call  at  my 
house  during  the  meeting.  Bishop  Janes  said: 
"  The  Committee  want  an  excuse  to  adjourn  and 
go  home."  I  quickly  responded,  "They  will  get 
no  excuse  from  me."    He  then  remarked,  that 


THIRD  MEETING    OF   GENERAL   COMMITTEE.  127 

Dr.  Foster  had  a  little  paper  wliicli  if  I  would 
sign,  the  Committee  would  adjourn  the  next 
morning  and  go  home.  I  asked  him  if  it  admit- 
ted great  frauds?  He  replied,  that  it  said  noth- 
ing about  frauds.  I  then  said,  "  I  will  not  hear 
it  read,  and  you  can  judge  whether  I  will  sign 
it."  The  good  and  timid  Bishop  then  indulged 
in  some  earnest  persuasion,  telling  me  that  the 
paper  was  of  little  consequence,  and  that  my 
signing  it  would  "give  the  Committee  an  ex- 
cuse to  leave  the  city,  which  would  probably  end 
the  charges."  Knomng  as  I  did  the  greatness 
of  the  iniquities  that  had  been  committed  in  the 
Book  Concern,  and  the  scarcely  less  culpable 
guilt  of  the  Book  Committee,  and  some  other 
oflficials  in  their  attempts  to  cover  up  the  frauds 
I  had  unearthed,  and  in  tlieir  pitiless  efforts 
to  damage  my  reputation,  and  though  my 
nervous  system  was  much  broken  by  what  I 
had  endured,  I  said  to  Bishop  Janes  and  Dr. 
Foster,  "If  I  know  myself,  I  would  be  buried 
alive  before  I  would  sign  any  paper  that  does 
not  declare  that  there  have  been  great  and  long- 
continued  frauds  in  the  Book  Concern."  I  then 
added,  "If  what  I  have  said  is  not  enough,  I 
would  consent  to  be  blotted  out  of  being  rather 
than  sign  anything  short  of  declaring  great 
frauds."    That  ended  the  interview. 

Those  worthy  and  justly  honored  men  did  not 
understand  that  much  manipulated  Committee 
as  well  as  I  did.  A  written  statement  of  the 
above  interview,  by  my  request,  was  read  to 


128  TniRD   MEETING   OF   GENEKAL   COMMITTEE. 

Bisliop  Foster,  by  Rev.  Dr.  Luther  T.  Townsend, 
September  4tli,  1894,  and  Bishop  Foster  corrobo- 
rated it.  Thus  without  getting  any  "excuse" 
from  me,  the  Committee  of  its  own  accord,  ad- 
journed the  next  morning  to  meet  in  Cincinnati 
20th  of  October,  after  adopting  the  following 
scandalous  paper: 

Whereas,  A  bill  of  charges  has  been  preferred  against 
Dr.  J.  Lanahan,  Assistant  Book  Agent  of  New  York,  upon 
notice  of  which  and  a  proper  call,  the  Book  Committee 
convened,  and  whereas  said  charges  have  been  duly  authen- 
ticated before  the  Committee,  with  assurances  that  the 
parties  complaining  hold  themselves  responsible  for  their 
prosecution,   therefore 

Resolved,  1.  That  we,  the  Book  Committee,  do  not  feel 
at  liberty  to  ignore  said  charges,  or  treat  lightly  complain- 
ants so  responsible,  or  complaints  of  so  grave  a  character. 

2.  That  while  we  hold  this  view,  and  without  expressing 
any  opinion  on  the  charges  aforesaid,  finding  ourselves 
surrounded  by  many  and  great  embaiTassments,  we  deem 
it  expedient  to  defer  the  consideration  until  our  next 
annual  meeting  in  October,  unless  emergencies  arise  which 
shall  make  more  immediate  attention  to  said  charges  im- 
perative on  the  Committee. 

3.  That  Dr.  Carlton,  Agent,  be  hereby  instructed  to  exer- 
cise his  authority  as  such  in  the  management  of  the  affairs 
of  the  Concern  as  far  as  he  shall  find  it  necessary  to  the 
safety  and   success   of  the  business. 

The  following  was  also  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  we  have  unbounded  confidence  in  Dr. 
Carlton,  the  principal  Agent,  and  believe  that  he  can  talie 
care  of  the  interests  of  the  Concern  until  sucli  time  as  the 
exigencies  of  the  Concern  may  make  our  interference  abso- 
lutely necessai'y. 

June  2d,  1870,  the  Christian  Advocate  said: 

The  complaints  were  too  serious  to  be  set  aside  as  trivial, 
and  the  complainants  too  respectable  to  be  denied  a  hear- 


THIRD  MEETING    OF   GENERAL   COMMITTEE.  129 

ing.    The  complaints  were  tliei-efore  entertalqed.    Next  it 
became  necessary  to  bring  the  accused  to  trial. 

Thus  by  the  Committee,  and  the  Chief  Official 
organ  of  the  Church,  with  my  name  at  the  head 
of  it  as  one  of  its  publishers,  I  was  held  up  before 
the  world  fiye  months  as  a  presumptive  criminal. 
The  Advocate  further  said: 

The  Committee  also  passed  a  resolution  instructing  Dr. 
Carlton,  the  Agent,  to  take  full  possession  of  the  affairs  of 
the  Concern.  The  whole  business  of  the  establishment  is 
in  the  hands  of  Dr.  Carlton,  and  his  authonty  is  equal  to 
all  the  demands  of  the  case,  so  the  Committee  thought, 
and  therefore  they  reminded  the  Agent  in  chief  that  they 
expected  that  he  would  use  his  prerogatives  in  a  legitimate 
way,  and  to  all  requisite  extents  for  the  pi'oper  manage- 
ment of  the  affairs  committed  to  him. 

Was  it  at  all  strange  that  multitudes  of  the 
readers  of  the  Advocate  should  have  regarded 
me  as  a  compound  of  knave  and  fool — vastly 
more  of  the  former,  however,  than  of  the  latter? 
The  evident  object  was  to  make  the  Church  and 
the  public  believe  that  I  was  endangering  the 
very  existence  of  the  establishment  and  that 
"The  Agent"  was  required  to  exert  himself  to 
counteract  my  destructive  work;  yet  he  was 
"  The  Agent,"  who,  with  the  heads  of  the  Print- 
ing and  Bindery  departments,  the  book-keeper 
and  clerks,  had  made  the  publishing  house  of 
the  Church  the  head-quarters  of  three  immense 
oil  companies.  It  is  a  significant  and  suggestive 
fact  that  the  Book  Committee  and  the  official 
press,  in  all  their  misrepresentations  and  per- 
versions, were  as  silent  as  the  grave  in  regard 


130         THIRD  MEETING   OF   GENERAL   COMMITTEE. 

to  those  oil  companies.  Did  they  fear  that  if 
the  Church  got  information  of  their  existence, 
their  denials  of  mismanagement  and  fraud  would 
not  be  believed? 


FOUKTH  MEETING  OF  THE  GENERAL 
COMMITTEE. 

1.  lanahan's  trial  and  the  conspiracy 
against  the  episcopacy. 

October  20tli,  the  Committee  met  at  Cincinnati, 
Ohio,  according  to  adjournment,  in  the  Western 
Book  Concern.  From  a  skeleton  copy  of  the 
official  record,  and  my  note  book,  I  will  give  the 
narrative  of  this  remarkable  meeting,  not  much 
more  remarkable,  however,  than  others  which 
had  preceded  it.  There  were  thirteen  members 
present.  Rev.  C.  Brooks  was  elected  Chairman, 
and  I.  S.  Bingham,  Secretary.  Much  formality 
was  observed  at  this  meeting;  accordingly,  "a 
Committee  of  two  was  appointed  to  conduct  the 
President  to  the  Chair,"  which  they  did.  The 
rule  of  the  former  meeting  was  adopted,  pro- 
viding for  secret  sessions,  and  that  no  member 
should  communicate  any  of  its  proceedings  with- 
out the  consent  of  the  Committee.  "  On  motion 
of  B.  F.  Rawlings,  the  Committee  agreed  to  hear 
from  the  Agents  at  New  York.  Dr.  Carlton 
thereupon  proceeded  to  make  some  verbal  state- 
ments, and  read  by  request  a  series  of  questions 
and  answers,  which  had  been  prepared  at  the 
previous   meeting    of   the   Committee,   at   New 

131 


132        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL,  COMMITTEE. 

York."  Said  paper  of  questions  and  answers 
was  signed,  "Carlton  and  Lanalian,  Agents." 
I  stated  that  I  had  never  heard  of  the  questions, 
nor  had  I  seen  the  paper  to  which  my  name  was 
attached,  and  that  I  could  not  and  would  not  be 
responsible  for  its  statements,  and  requested 
that  my  name  be  erased  from  it.  Dr.  Carlton 
said,  "I  want  to  know  if  I  must  consult  Dr. 
Lanahan  about  the  reports  I  make?  "  I  replied, 
"If  my  name  is  signed  to  your  reports,  I  claim 
to  know  what  they  contain."  The  Secretary 
said  "I  addressed  the  questions  to  the  Agents, 
and  the  document  is  properly  signed.  It  is  a 
legal  document  and  from  the  proper  authorities." 
I  again  protested  against  such  a  use  of  my  name, 
and  requested  that  my  protest  be  entered  upon 
the  Committee's  records.  My  request  was  re- 
jected, and  a  majority  acquiesced  in  the  decision 
of  the  Secretary!  Was  the  like  ever  heard  of 
outside  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition?  It  was,  how- 
ever, in  harmony  with  many  other  things  done 
by  the  Committee.  I  greatly  regret  that  when 
I  got  access  to  the  Committee's  records  I  did  not 
find  that  remarkable  paper  of  "questions  and 
answers."  Perhaps  when  I  am  in  my  grave,  and 
the  "  lost  or  stolen  records  "  are  found,  it  may  be 
produced  and  quoted  to  prove  that  I  had  retract- 
ed my  charges  of  mismanagement  and  fraud,  and 
united  with  the  Senior  Agent  in  a  glowing  ac- 
count of  the  management  of  the  Book  Concern. 
The  Chairman  announced  that  "A  paper  pur- 
porting to  be  Supplementary  Charges  against  J. 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         133 

Lanahan  liad  been  received,  signed  by  H.  F. 
Pease  and  otbers,  wMcli  was  laid  upon  the 
table."  After  some  discussion  about  the  Sup- 
plementary Charges,  Rev.  B.  F.  Rawlings  pre- 
sented the  following: 

In  view  of  the  representations  made  to  tlie  Book  Com- 
mittee at  its  session  in  May  last,  and  at  tlie  present  ses- 
sion, by  H.  F.  Pease  and  others,  (see  document  marked 
"  A,"  Cliarges  and  Specifications),  concernmg  tlie  official 
conduct  of  Rev.  J.  Lanahan,  Assistant  Agent,  at  New 
York, 

Resolved,  That  said  Assistant  Agent  be  and  hereby  is 
suspended  from  his  position  as  such  Assistant  Agent. 

Pending  final  action  on  the  above,  I  was  invit- 
ed to  make  any  communication  I  might  desire. 
I  replied  that  I  did  not  deem  it  proper  to  make 
any  reply  to  the  charges  at  that  time,  and  stated 
that  I  was  aware  of  the  object  of  the  secret  meet- 
ings they  had  held,  with  Dr.  Carlton  present,  and 
myself  excluded;  that  they  had  kept  me  held  up 
before  the  world  for  five  months  as  a  presump- 
tive criminal,  and  that  I  should  be  obliged  to 
them  if  they  would  consummate  their  purpose, 
whatever  it  might  be.  I  saw  plainly  that  the 
plan  was  to  keep  the  charges  hanging  over  me 
indefinitely,  and  I,  therefore,  determined  to  force 
the  issue. 

A  resolution  was  then  offered  by  B.  F.  Raw- 
lings,  and  adopted,  to  "  order  the  main  question 
without  debate  and  on  proper  call.  The  vote 
was  taken  by  yeas  and  nays.  Yeas,  C.  S.  Van- 
cleve,  I.  S.  Bingham,  J.  Irwin,  J.  F.  Kennedy, 


134        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

B.  F.  Kawlings,  F.  A.  Blades,  H.  Bannister,  C. 
Brooks  and  J.  Kotliweiler,  nine.  Nays,  J.  Pike, 
Henry  Slicer,  G.  Maltby,  L.  M.  Yernon,  four." 
Messrs.  Woodniff  and  Moore  were  absent. 

January  12th,  1871,  was  fixed  as  tlie  time  for 
my  trial,  and  all  tlie  Bisliops  were  requested  to 
be  present.  Several  resolutions  were  adopted 
appointing  all  the  preliminary  arrangements, 
after  which  I  presented  the  following: 

Cincinnati,   October  20,  1870. 
To  tlie  Boole  Committee,  now  in  session: 

Brethren.— I  respectfully  ask  authority  from  you  to  make 
such  examination  of  the  books  and  papers  of  the  Book 
Concern  at  New  Yoi'k,  as  I  may  deem  necessary  for  my 
defense.  I  also  ask  to  be  furnished  with  copies  of  such 
papers  and  records  of  the  Committee  as  I  may  desire  for 
the  same  pui-pose. 

Yours   veiT    truly,    JOHN   LANAHAN. 

My  request,  to  my  surprise,  was  promptly  and 
unanimously  granted  without  any  restrictions, 
and  I  immediately  started  for  my  home  in  New 
York,  congratulating  myself  that  the  scandalous 
charges  that  had  hung  over  me  five  months 
had  been  brought  down  to  a  position  where  I 
could  face  them  and  their  authors.  When  I  got 
access  to  the  Committee's  records,  I  was  aston- 
ished to  find,  that  after  I  left  they  had  recon- 
sidered all  the  papers  adopted  in  connection  with 
my  suspension,  reshaped  them,  and  then  readopt- 
ed  them.  The  most  significant  change  was  the 
reconsideration  of  the  frank  and  proper  resolu- 
tion giving  me  unrestricted  authority  to  examine 
the  books  and  papers  preparatory  to  my  defense, 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         135 

and  tlie  substitution  of  the  following  amazing 
paper: 

Resolved,  That  inasmuch  as  Dr.  Lanahan  has  asked  per- 
mission to  make  such  examination  of  the  account-books 
and  papers  of  the  Book  Concern  at  New  York,  as  may  be 
necessaiy  for  his  defense,  we  recognize  the  propriety  of 
his  request,  and  direct  that  Dr.  Carlton,  the  Book  Agent, 
at  New  York,  afford  such  aids  and  facilities  as  Dr.  Lana- 
han here  asks  for,  consistent  with  the  proper  care  and 
safety  of  the  books  of  the  Concern,  provided  that  the 
books  and  papers  shall  not  be  removed  from  the  building 
where  they  are  ordinarily  kept,  and  that  the  examination 
of  them  shall  be  made  under  the  supervision  of  Mr.  E. 
Grant,  the  principal  book-keeper  of  the  Concern,  or  some 
other  competent  and  responsible  person  who  may  be  desig- 
nated by  Dr.  Carlton,  to  assist  as  above  provided.  And 
provided  further,  that  when  Dr.  Lanahan  shall  specify 
any  books  or  papers  which  he  may  need  for  the  purpose 
above  specified.  Dr.  Carlton  shall  cause  a  record  of  them 
to  be  made  and  proper  receipts  taken  therefor. 

I.   S.   BINGHAM,   Sec.   of  Book  Committee. 

As  if  they  had  not  sufficiently  degraded  me 
in  my  moral  character  by  the  above,  they  next 
proceeded  to  degrade  me  in  my  official  position 
by  attempting  to  revive  a  law  that  had  been 
repealed  many  years  before.  The  following  is 
what  they  adopted: 

It  is  the  judgment  of  this  Committee  that  the  relation 
of  Assistant  Agent  to  the  Agent  is  that  which  is  expressed 
by  the  word  "  Assistant,"  and  the  Committee  understand 
the  term  as  defined  by  the  Discipline  of  1816 — namely, 
"  who  shall  act  under  the  direction  of  the  Agent." 

The  entire  paragraph  of  1816,  containing  the 
words,  "  an  Assistant  to  act  under  his  direction," 
was  repealed  in  1832,  and  the  following  among 
the  rest  substituted :    "  There  shall  be  an  Agent 


136         FOURTH  MEETING  OF   GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

or  General  Book-Steward,  and  an  Assistant,  wlio 
shall  act  as  chief  clerk,  both  of  whom  ....  shall 
be  chosen  from  among  the  travelling  preachers." 
in  1840,  "the  clause  requiring  the  Assistant 
Agent  to  act  as  chief  clerk  was  struck  out"  (see 
History  of  the  Discipline,  p.  314).  In  the  journal 
of  the  General  Conference,  p.  119,  this  matter, 
as  reported  by  the  Committee  on  the  Book  Con- 
cern, is  stated  in  these  words: 

Your  Committee  recommend  a  change  in  the  Discip- 
line on  page  180,  section  8,  part  2,  paragraph  3,  and  in 
order  thereto  offer  the  following   resolution: 

22.  Resolved,  That  the  words  "  who  shall  act  as  chief 
clerk  "  be  stricken  out.    This  was  adopted. 

In  1844,  the  definition  of  the  powers  of  the 
Agents  took  the  form  which  it  has  retained  ever 
since,  to  wit: 

The  Agents  shall  have  the  authority  to  regulate  the 
publications  and  all  other  parts  of  the  business  of  the 
Concern,  except  what  belongs  to  the  editorial  departments, 
as  the  state  of  the  finances  will  admit  and  the  demands 
may  require. 

This  had  been  the  law  of  the  Church  more 
than  twenty-five  years.  But  it  must  be  kept 
in  mind  that  the  Committee  claimed  to  be  "the 
General  Conference  in  its  absence,"  and  as  such, 
could  revive  repealed  laws  and  abolish  new  ones ! 
The  reader  must  not  be  shocked  at  such  conduct. 
It  is  in  harmony  with  all  their  proceedings.  The 
question  may  be  asked,  what  was  the  object  of 
such  strange  action?  Several  answers  might  be 
given.    One  is  that  as  the  Subordinate  or  "Chief 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         137 

Clerk  "  of  the  Senior  Agent,  I  had.  no  right  to  see 
the  bank  books,  or  know  what  use  was  made  of 
the  immense  sums  of  money  belonging  to  the 
Book  Concern,  and.  the  other  great  connectional 
interests  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church. 

One  of  two  things  is  true,  either  they  feared 
an  examination  or  they  thought  they  were  deal- 
ing with  a  man  too  unreliable  to  be  trusted  with 
the  books  and  papers,  and  over  whom  they  must 
place  every  possible  safeguard.  It  might  have 
been  thought  the  requirement  that  I  should 
"specify  any  books  or  papers,  and  a  record  of 
them  be  made,  and  proper  receipts  be  taken 
therefor,"  sufficient  without  placing  "the  prin- 
cipal book-keeper,  E.  Grant,  (one  of  my  subordi- 
nates) or  some  other  competent  and  responsible 
person,  designated  by  Dr.  Carlton,  to  assist  as 
above  provided,"  to  watch  me.  Grant  was  cer- 
tainly the  "responsible  person"  that  Dr.  Carl- 
ton would  have  chosen  above  all  others,  because 
he  had  just  at  that  time  been  made  specially 
zealous  for  the  honor  of  the  Senior  Agent,  by  the 
latter  having  secretly  added  two  thousand  dol- 
lars to  his  salary.  A  further  significant  fact  in 
this  connection  is,  that  when  I  applied  to  Dr. 
Carlton  for  the  bank  books,  he  positively  refused 
to  let  me  see  them,  notwithstanding  all  the 
above  safeguards! 

After  receiving  and  entertaining  new  accusa- 
tions against  me,  called  "  Supplementary  Char- 
ges," the  Committee  adjourned  to  meet  at  the 
Book  Concern,  in  New  York,  January  12th,  1871. 


138        FOURTH  MEETING   OF   GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 
THE   TRIAL    COMMENCED. 

The  Committee  met  according  to  appointment 
at  the  Book  Concern,  805  Broadway,  New  York, 
January  12th,  1871.  All  the  members  were  pres- 
ent. Messrs.  Pike  and  Slicer  objected  to  the 
further  employment  of  Eev.  Alexander  McLain 
as  Stenographer,  on  the  ground  of  his  active 
partisanship,  but  their  objection  was  overruled. 
Anticipating  that  the  Committee  would  want 
to  sit  with  closed  doors,  and  not  willing  to  trust 
Mr.  McLain,  I  employed  a  stenographer.  When 
he  appeared,  the  question  was  asked,  "What  is 
that  stranger  doing  in  the  room?"  I  answered: 
"He  is  my  clerk."  A  member  said  to  me  that 
he  would  be  excluded  at  the  next  meeting.  I 
replied:  "If  that  is  done,  I  will  issue  an  appeal 
to  the  public,  I  will  not  submit  to  any  further 
star-chamber  proceedings."  The  attempt  was 
not  made. 

Bishops  Janes,  Simpson,  Ames  and  Scott,  were 
in  the  Bishops'  room,  waiting  a  notice  to  be  pres- 
ent in  their  co-ordinate  relation  to  the  trial. 
The  Committee  wanted  to  sit  with  closed  doors, 
and  asked  for  the  opinion  of  the  Bishops,  which 
they  declined  to  give,  stating  that  the  Committee 
must  settle  that,  and  all  such  questions  to  suit 
themselves.  Kesolutions  to  sit  with  open  doors 
were  twice  voted  down.  But  the  pressure  of 
public  opinion  proved  too  strong,  and  the  follow- 
ing was  adopted: 

Whereas,  It  has  become  evident  to  the  Committee  that 
Dr.  Lanahan  and  his  counsel  wish  to  have  a  full  report  of 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         139 

the  testimony  and  of  the  action  of  the  Committee  given 
to  the  public; 

Resolved,  That  responsible  and  accredited  reporters  for 
the  leading  daily  papers  of  this  city,  for  whom  admittance 
may  be  asked  by  the  proprietors,  shall  have  permission  to 
be  present  and  report  for  their  papers  respectively  the  pro- 
ceedings of  this  session  of  the  Committee. 

The  following  order  of  procedure  was  also 
adopted: 

1.  That  gentlemen  making  charges  against  the  Rev.  Dr, 
Lanahan  are  requested  to  present  testimony,  following  the 
order  of  the  papers  and  specifications  as  signed  and  pub- 
lished. 

2.  That  any  person  thus  testifying  may  call  to  his  assist- 
ance any  minister  or  layman  to  corroborate  his  evidence. 

3.  That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lanahan  be  allowed  to  reply  to  such 
charges. 

4.  That  the  Rev.  Dr.  Lanahan  be  allowed  the  same  privi- 
lege of  calling  upon  ministers  and  laymen  as  granted  to 
the  prosecution. 

5.  That  witnesses  introduced  shall,  when  necessary,  be 
cross-examined;  and  also  that  but  one  witness  be  allowed 
in  the  room  at  a  time. 

Reporters  for  tlie  press  were  now  admitted, 
and  I  give  tlie  proceedings  as  they  were  publish- 
ed in  the  New  York  papers,  and  from  my  note 
book. 

The  following  communication  from  the  Bishops 
was  presented  by  their  Secretary  pro  tern.. 
Bishop  Simpson: 

To  the  Book  Committee: 

Dear  Brethren. — In  accordance  with  your  request,  dated 
November  1,  1870,  we  are  here  to  be  present  at  the  investi- 
gation before  the  Book  Committee  touching  the  official  con- 
duct of  Rev.  John  Lanahan,  Assistant  Book  Agent  at  New 
York.  This  case  being  without  precedent  In  our  Church, 
and  this  being  the  first  instance  in  which  the  Discipline  of 


140        FOURTH  MEETING  OP  GENBRAX,  COMMITTEE. 

the  Church  relating  to  it  has  been  administered,  we  have 
deemed  it  proper  to  confer  together  as  to  our  authority  and 
duty  in  the  case. 

1.  After  consultation  we  are  of  opinion  that  we  are  not 
to  act  as  an  integral  part  of  the  Book  Committee,  but  as 
a  concurrent  authority  in  determining  the  result  of  the 
investigation. 

2.  The  Committee  must  conduct  the  investigation  accord- 
ing to  their  own  judgment.  We  hold,  however,  that,  as 
a  concurrent  authority  in  the  final  determination  of  the 
case,  we  have  a  right  to  require  such  information  as  we 
may  deem  necessary  to  enable  us  to  form  an  intelligent 
and  just  judgment. 

3.  As  our  official  action  is  subject  to  review  by  the  Gen- 
eral Conference,  to  which  body  we  are  directly  amenable, 
we  deem  it  necessary  to  have  a  full  and  perfect  record 
of  our  participation  in  the  proceedings,  that  we  may  sub- 
mit the  same  to  that  body.  For  this  reason,  and  to  aid  us 
in  our  consultations  when  by  ourselves,  we  have  secured 
a  Secretary  to  make  for  our  use  such  a  record. 

EDMUND   S.   JANES,        M.   SIMPSON, 
L.  SCOTT,  E.  R.  AMES. 

New  York,  January  12,  1871. 

The  Bishops  were  wise  in  selecting  their  own 
stenographer.  Counsel  for  the  plaintiffs  were 
E.  L.  Fancher,  Esq.,  Gen.  Theodore  Runyon,  of 
New  Jersey  and  Rev.  H.  F.  Pease.  For  the 
defendant,  Judge  G.  G.  Reynolds  and  Dr.  James 
M.  Buckley,  Hon.  Oliver  Hoyt  and  John  Elliot, 
Esq.  It  was  apparent  that  the  Committee  ex- 
pected the  charges  and  specifications  to  be  read, 
and  then  each  taken  up  item  by  item.  But  I 
had  prepared  and  printed  my  answers  to  each 
charge  and  specification  in  regular  order,  admit- 
ting or  denying,  and  thus  preventing  the  entan- 
glements which  often  arise  in  trials.  Thus,  too, 
my  accusers  were  given  something  to  do.    When 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.    '    141 

plaintiff's  counsel  commenced  to  read  the  char- 
ges and  specifications,  Judge  Keynolds  an- 
nounced that  he  would  read  the  answer  to  each 
in  its  order.  Thus  the  two  proceeded  together 
as  they  are  here  given.  I  then  furnished  each 
member  of  the  Committee  a  printed  copy  of  my 
answers,  and  a  more  dimibfounded  set  of  men  I 
never  saw  than  the  majority.  They  had  thought 
to  get  affairs  into  entanglement  and  confusion, 
and  thus  weary  the  Church  and  the  public  by 
endless  discussion  and  enforced  delay.  This 
was  defeated  by  my  acknowledgment  of  certain 
of  the  charges,  and  indicated  readiness  to  prove 
them,  and  their  conscious  inability  to  prove  those 
which  I  denied. 

Kev.  J.  F.  Kennedy  openly  stated  in  the  Com- 
mittee, as  "no  secret,  that  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher 
wrote  the  charges."  It  was  also  an  open  secret 
that  Dr.  Carlton,  with  the  approval  and  advice 
of  certain  members  of  the  Committee,  assisted 
him,  and  that  S.  J.  Goodenough  hawked  them 
about  in  New  York  and  New  Jersey  to  get  men 
to  sign  them,  and  that  a  majority  of  the  signers 
did  not  read  the  paper  to  which  they  affixed 
their  names!  These  facts  would  have  been 
brought  out  in  evidence  if  the  trial  had  gone  on. 

The  following  are  the  charges  and  specifica- 
tions, and  my  answer: 

To  the  Book  Committee,  appointed  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church: 
Charges  and   specifications  against  Rev.  John  Lanahan, 
D.  D.,  Assistant  Book  Agent  of  the  Methodist  Book  Con- 
cern. 


142        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

CHARGE  FIRST. 

Official   Misconduct  and   Malfeasance. 

Specification  1.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Book  Agent, 
during  several  mouths  prior  to  September  21st,  1869,  made 
to  various  persons,  and  particularly  to  Fletcher  Harper, 
unfounded  statements,  imputing  mismanagement,  fraud, 
and  corruption  in  the  said  Book  Concern,  and  large  losses 
therein,  and  injudiciously  and  recklessly  gave  currency  to 
such  imputations;  by  means  whereof  an  article  was  pub- 
lished in  the  New  York  Times  of  September  21st,  1869,  in 
which  such  alleged  mismanagement,  fraud,  and  corruption, 
and  such  large  losses,  and  other  untruthful  imputations 
against  said  Book  Concern,  were  publicly  asserted,  to  the 
great  damage  of  the  interests  of  the  Book  Concern  and  the 
scandal  of  the  Church. 

JOHN   LANAHAN'S  ANSWER  TO   CHARGE  FIRST. 
Of  Official  Misconduct  and  Malfeasance. 

Specification  1.  I,  the  said  John  Lanahan,  deny  the  allega- 
tions contained  in  specification  1,  of  charge  first. 

Specification  2.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Agent,  in 
the  presence  and  hearing  of  divers  pei-sons,  on  the  day  of 
the  publication  of  said  article,  which  was  false  and  libelous 
in  every  material  respect,  proclaimed  that  said  article  was 
all  true,  except  in  the  statement  of  the  amount  of  said 
losses. 

Specification  2.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 2,  of  charge  first. 

Specification  3.  In  this,  that  after  the  appearance  of  said 
article  in  the  New  York  Times,  and  its  damaging  effects  to 
the  Church  and  Book  Concern  were  foreseen,  the  said  As- 
sistant Agent  willfully  refused  to  unite  with  the  principal 
Agent  of  said  Book  Concern  in  any  official  explanation  or 
denial  of  the  said  article,  unless  the  injurious  charge  tliat 
fraud  and  comiption  existed  in  the  Book  Concern  were 
again  repeated  or  admitted. 

Specification  3.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 3,  of  charge  first,  as  they  are  therein  set  forth.  It 
is  true,  however,  that  after  the  appearance  of  the  article 
in  the  Ncav  York  Times,  I  refused  to  unite  in  a  denial  of 
any  fraud   or  corruption  in  the  Book   Concern,   but  such 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         143 

refusal  was  not  "  willful "  on  my  part.  There  had  been 
fraud  and  corruption  in  the  management  of  the  business 
of  said  Book  Concern  on  the  part  of  some  of  its  employees, 
and  I  could  not  tinith  fully  deny  it. 

Specification  4.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Agent, 
knowing  that  the  Book  Agents,  and  Thomas  Carlton,  as 
Treasurer  of  the  Missionary  Society  of  the  Methodist  Epis- 
copal Church,  had  large  and  frequent  dealings  with  Brown 
Brothers  &  Co.;  and  knowing  that  the  house  of  Bi'own 
Brothers  &  Co.  was  not  indebted  to  the  Book  Concern,  and 
that  said  house  was,  and  is,  one  of  the  wealthiest  in  New 
York,  willfully  and  maliciously  represented,  during  1869  or 
1870,  to  one  of  its  members,  that  said  firm  was  published 
as  defaulters  on  the  books  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern. 

Specification  4.  I  deny  that  I  at  any  time  represented  to 
one  of  the  firm  of  Brown  Brothers  &  Co.  that  said  firm 
were  published  as  defaulters  on  the  books  of  the  Methodist 
Book  Concern,  as  in  that  behalf  charged  against  me  in 
specification  4,  of  charge  first. 

It  does,  however,  appear  from  the  ledger  of  said  Book 
Concern  that  said  Brown  Brothers  &  Co.  are  indebted  to 
said  Concern  in  the  sum  of  $20,607.86  for  moneys  depos- 
ited, and  that  said  indebtedness  has  been  charged,  as  an 
uncollectible  demand,  to  profit  and  loss  account.  Knowing 
the  house  of  Brown  Brothers  «&  Co.  to  be  of  the  highest 
responsibility  and  standing,  I  was  unable  to  understand 
why  such  an  entry  should  have  been  made,  and  I  took 
occasion  to  ask  one  of  said  firm  in  regard  to  the  trans- 
action. 

Specification  5.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Agent 
during  the  time  he  has  held  his  oflice,  has  stated  that  the 
affairs  of  said  Book  Concern  were  "  in  chaos;  "  when,  at 
the  same  time,  they   were  in  good  order. 

Specification  5.  I  am  charged,  in  specification  5,  of  charge 
fix'st,  with  having  "  stated  that  the  affairs  of  said  Book 
Concern  were  in  chaos."  I  have  made  such  a  statement, 
and  I  believe  the  same  to  be  strictly  time;  and  I  deny  so 
much  of  said  specification  5  as  charges  that  said  affairs 
"  were  in  good  order  "  at  the  time,  and  no  more. 

And  as  evidence  of  the  chaotic  condition  of  said  affairs, 
I  aver  and  hold  myself  responsible  and  ready  to  prove 
that  the  system  of  book-keeping  adopted  by  said  Book 
Concern  is  an  inferior  system,  incomplete  and  unsatisfac- 


144        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

tory,  and  that  the  books  as  kept  contain  erasures,  substi- 
tutions and  charges  highly  improper,  and  such  as  would 
not  be  allowed  by  any  respectable  commercial  house;  that 
the  profits  of  the  Concern  have  been  computed  upon  a 
fictitious  basis;  that  the  inventories  of  the  property  have 
been  increased  and  diminished  arbitrarily  to  suit  the 
necessities  of  particular  emergencies;  that  great  discrep- 
ancies have  existed  between  the  printed  exhibits  furnished 
to  the  Church  and  the  Books  of  said  Concern,  such  printed 
exhibits  in  some  instances  showing  a  profit  when  the 
books  show  there  was  no  profit  but  an  actual  loss;  that 
errors  have  been  improperly  corrected,  and  that  some  still 
remain  in  the  accounts  uncorrected;  that  the  capital  stock 
of  the  Concern  is  not  what  it  is  represented  to  be  upon  the 
books  of  said  Concern;  that  improper  entries  have  been 
made  in  said  books,  whereby  great  and  important  trans- 
actions have  been  rendered  unintelligible;  that  many  im- 
portant safeguards  are  systematically  neglected— as  a 
result  of  which  a  wide  margin  for  frauds  and  errors  exists, 
and  important  information  is  diflicult  or  impossible  to  be 
accurately  obtained;  that  said  books  of  account  do  not 
show  the  real  condition  of  the  affairs  of  said  Concern,  nor 
can  a  correct  statement  of  its  assets  or  condition  be  made 
upon  the  basis  of  the  information  furnished  by  the  said 
books  and  inventories. 

Specification  6.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Agent 
has,  during  his  term  of  office,  publicly  proclaimed  and  fre- 
quently alleged  that  frauds  and  cormption  had  existed  in 
said  Book  Concern,  resulting  in  large  losses;  whereas  there 
was  no  sufficient  foundation  for  such  unwarrantable  char- 
ges, and  no  proper  excuse  for  making  any  such  public 
proclamation  and  allegation. 

Specification  6.  I  deny  tlie  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication G,  of  charge  first,  as  the  same  are  therein  set  forth. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  frauds,  corruption  and  misman- 
agement had  existed  in  said  Book  Concern,  resulting  in 
large  losses,  and  I  did  not  deny  or  attempt  to  conceal  the 
fact. 

In  the  single  item  of  leather  more  than  $25,000  worth  was 
purchased  during  a  period  of  twenty  months,  over  and 
above  what  has  been  used,  which  has  never  been  accounted 
for. 

In  the  item  of  paper,  a  system  of  making  purchases  was 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.        145 

allowed  and  practiced,  wliereby  a  man  having  no  legiti- 
mate connection  with  the  Book  Concern  controlled  the  pur- 
chases to  his  own  profit  and  to  the  loss  and  discredit  of 
the   Concern. 

In  the  item  of  wages,  proof  of  more  than  two  hundred 
instances  exist  where  a  less  amount  was  paid  to  operatives 
than  was,  or  should  have  been,  paid  to  them,  or  than  was 
or  should  have  been  drawn  for  such  payments,  and  less 
than  was  returned  to  the  book-keeper  as  having  been  paid 
to  such  operatives. 

Specification  7.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Agent, 
during  his  term  of  ofiice,  has  demeaned  himself  toward  the 
principal  Agent,  Editors  connected  with  said  Book  Concern, 
its  employees,  and  others  having  business  relations  with  it, 
in  a  violent,  dogmatic,  and  angry  manner,  and  has  asserted 
his  official  authority  in  an  unreasonable,  unbusiness-like, 
and  improper  manner,  to  the  interference  with  and  detri- 
ment of  the  regular  and  proper  business  of  the  Concern. 

Specification  7.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 7,  of  charge  first. 

Specification  8.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Agent,  during 
his  term  of  office,  has  evinced  a  spirit  of  hostility  toward 
the  principal  Book  Agent,  and  a  disposition  not  to  coope- 
rate with  him  in  the  orderly  and  proper  management  of 
the  affaii's  of  the  Book  Concern;  and  in  this  particular  has 
publicly  made  petty  and  discreditable  objections  to  matters 
connected  with  the  business  and  book-keeping  of  said 
Concern;  such  as  an  entry  on  the  books  of  the  Concern  of 
an  item  of  $20,900,  charged  to  profit  and  loss,  and  the 
guarantee  of  certain  letters  of  credit  for  the  Missionary 
Society  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South;  the  cir- 
cumstances of  which  had  been  fully  explained  to  him  by  the 
principal  Agent,  and  in  respect  of  which  no  motive  of  said 
Assistant  Agent  existed  for  divulging  the  matter,  except  to 
annoy  said  principal  Agent,  and  to  impute  to  him  the 
supposed  prejudicial  charge  of  guaranteeing  letters  of 
credit  for  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South;  and  in 
this  particular  also,  has  improperly  charged  said  principal 
Agent  with  not  cooperating  with  him  in  discovering  as- 
sumed frauds  and  losses;  has  sought  counsel  as  to  Book 
Concern  affairs  with  persons  outside  of  and  inimical  to  the 
establishment,  instead  of  advising  with  said  principal 
Agent;  has  brought  into  the  Concern,  without  the  advice 


146        FOUKTH  MEETING  OF   GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

or  knowledge  of  the  principal  Agent,  so-called  experts  and 
others  to  overhaul  secretly  its  books,  accounts,  vouchers, 
and  affairs;  has  made  surreptitious  reports  to  others  of 
Book  Concern  matters  that  should  have  been  treated  as 
private  matters  belonging  to  the  Agents,  and  not  to  be 
divulged  without  the  assent  of  the  principal  Agent;  has 
made  injudicious  bargains  for  ink.  paper,  and  other  mate- 
rials, without  consultation  with  the  principal  Agent;  has 
given  orders  to  clerks  and  employees  not  to  pursue  the 
orderly  and  customaiy  modes  of  business  without  first 
consulting  him  and  obtaining  his  consent;  has  spoken  of 
and  to  said  principal  Agent  in  a  contemptuous  and  im- 
proper manner,  add  has  made  a  public  speech  before  the 
Baltimore  Annual  Conference,  containing  injurious  and 
untruthful  assertions  touching  said  principal  Agent  and 
the   Book   Concern. 

Specification  8.  I  deny  that  I  have  "  evinced  a  spirit  of 
hostility  towards  the  principal  book  Agent,  or  a  disposition 
not  to  cooperate  with  him  in  the  orderly  and  proper  man- 
agement of  the  affairs  of  the  Book  Concern,"  as  charged 
upon  me  in  specification  8,  of  charge  first.  And  as  to  the 
particular  matters  set  forth  in  said  specification,  in  that 
behalf,  I  deny  them  as  set  forth.  It  is  true,  however,  that 
I  have  made  objections  to  matters  connected  with  the  busi- 
ness and  book-keeping  of  said  Concern,  but  not  "  petty  "  nor 
"  discreditable  "  objections.  I  think  the  system  of  keeping 
the  books  should  be  changed,  and  various  matters  connected 
with  the  business  have  not  commended  themselves  to  my 
judgment,  and  I  have  stated  my  objections  to  the  principal 
Agent  for  the  purpose  of  inducing  a  reform.  I  did  object 
to  the  manner  in  which  an  item  of  $20,900,  charged  to 
profit  and  loss,  was  entered  upon  the  books,  but  not  from 
the  motives  alleged  in  said  specification  S,  but  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons: 

1.  Because  the  entry  shows  that  Brown  Brothers  &  Co. 
are  indebted  to  the  Book  Concern  for  the  said  amount, 
which  is  not  true. 

2.  Because  the  books  did  not  disclose  who  the  time  debtor 
was. 

3.  Because  notes  had  been  given  for  said  indebtedness  by 
the  real  debtor,  but  such  notes  were  not  entered  upon  the 
books,  nor  did  it  appear  therefrom  that  any  notes  had 
been  given  on  account  of  such  indebtedness. 


FOURTH  MEETING  OP  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         147 

4.  Because  $1,300  had  been  paid  on  one  of  said  notes,  but 
no  entry  of  such  payment  was  made  on  the  books,  nor 
was  the  money  so  collected  accounted  for  on  the  books  of 
the  Concern. 

For  these  reasons  I  considered  said  enti'y  and  omissions 
"  more  than  improper." 

It  is  also  true  that  the  said  principal  Agent  has  not 
cooperated  with  me  in  the  examination  of  certain  trans- 
actions and  matters  of  the  said  Concern,  after  circumstan- 
ces had  shown  to  my  satisfaction  they  were  irregular  and 
suspicious,  and  probably  fraudulent.  I  did  engage  a  person 
to  assist  me  in  examining  the  wages  accounts,  who  was 
more  expert  in  such  matters  than  1  was,  but  it  was  done 
in  the  interest  of  the  Concern  and  not  secretly.  My  Balti- 
more speech  was  not  untruthful.  The  general  statements 
of  this  specification  which  are  not  already  answered,  I 
deny. 

CHARGE    SECOND. 

Neglect  of  Official  Duty. 

Specification  1.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Agent  has 
during  his  term  of  office,  spent  large  portions  of  his  time, 
that  should  have  been  employed  in  his  official  duties,  in 
matters  that  do  not  further  the  interests  of  the  Book 
Concern;  has  neglected  to  attend  Annual  Conferences  when 
the  business  of  the  establishment  required  that  he  should 
do  so;  and  has  been  engaged  in  attempts  to  defame  the 
said  Concern,  and  to  defend  and  aggrandize  himself  in 
respect  of  his  late  unfounded  imputations  against  the 
Concern. 

ANSWER  TO  CHARGE  SECOND. 

Of  Neglect  of  Official  Duty. 

Specification  1.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 1,  of  charge  second. 

CHARGE  THIRD. 

Untruthfulness,  Irascibility,  Slanderous  Disposition,  and 
other  Objectionable  Personal  Characteristics  which 
Unfit  him  for  the  Position  of  Assistant  Book  Agent. 

Specification  1.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Agent  un- 
truthfully charged,  during  the  session  of  the  Book  Commit- 


148        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

tee  in  February,  1870,  that  there  was  a  conspiracy  among 
some  of  said  Committee,  headed  by  the  Attorney  of  the 
Book  Concern,  against  him,  and  has  since  then  repeated 
said  untruthful  charge. 

ANSWER    TO    CHARGE   THIRD. 

Specification  1.  I  did  malie  the  charge  of  conspiracy 
referred  to  in  specification  1,  of  charge  third,  and  I  then 
believed  and  still  believe  the  same  to  be  true. 

Specification  2.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Agent,  in  a 
speech  before  the  Baltimore  Annual  Conference  in  March, 
1870,  untruthfully  asserted  as  follows:  "  A  few  days  after 
the  Committee  met,  a  message  came  from  a  lawyer,  stat- 
ing that  he  wanted  to  be  present  and  hear  the  testimony 
read,  taken  at  the  previous  investigation." 

Specification  2.  I  did,  in  my  Baltimore  speech,  make  the 
assertion  set  forth  in  specification  2,  of  charge  third,  and 
I  deny  that  said  assertion   was  untruthful. 

Specification  3.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Agent  pre- 
sented to  said  Book  Committee,  and  also  before  said  Balti- 
more Annual  Conference,  a  letter  written  by  him,  dated 
Januaiy  31st,  1870,  in  which  it  is  untruthfully  asserted 
that  Mr.  Fancher  had  made  an  application  to  be  present 
before  said  Committee;  also  containing  the  further  untruth- 
ful allegation  that  Mr.  Fancher  had  made  himself  a 
partisan,  and  had  spoken  strongly  in  public  and  private 
against  him. 

Specification  3.  I  have  made  the  assertions  set  forth  in 
specification  3,  of  charge  third,  and  I  deny  that  they  are 
untruthful. 

Specification  4.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Agent,  in  his 
aforesaid  Baltimore  speech,  uttered  the  following,  untruth- 
ful and  slanderous  language: 

"  The  lawyer  thus  admitted  soon  showed  that  he  was 
there  not  so  much  to  hear  the  testimony  as  to  be  the 
attorney  for  dishonest  men  who  had  been  driven  from  the 
house,  and  the  prosecutor  of  myself.  Zealously  did  he 
apply  himself  to  his  work,  and  greatly  did  he  seem  disap- 
pointed when  he  saw  the  failure  of  his  plans  for  my  over- 
throw. I  look  back  with  wonder  and  horror  upon  these 
scenes— scenes  in  which  official  and  unofficial  persons, 
headed  by  a  lawyer,  labored  and  planned,  day  after  day,  to 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         149 

shelter  guilty  men,  who,  for  long  years,  had  enriched  them- 
selves at  the  expense  of  the  money  and  honor  of  the  Book 
Concern,  and  to  intimidate  and  overwhelm  me,  an  officer 
of  the  Church,  for  no  other  offense  than  that  of  faithfulness 
to  my  duty. 

Specification  4.  I  did  utter  the  language  set  forth  in 
specification  4,  of  charge  third,  but  I  deny  that  it  was 
untruthful   or  slanderous. 

Specification  5.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Book 
Agent  uttered  the  following  untruthful  and  slanderous 
language  in  his   said  Baltimore  speech: 

•'  If  the  Committee  had  met  alone,  without  any  outside 
influence,  and  if  there  had  been  no  combination,  I  think 
their  conclusion  would  have  been  different;  but  such  a 
pressure,  such  a  coming  of  men,  and  such  a  meeting  of 
influences,  I  never  saw.  Men  having  no  responsibility  in 
the  matter;  men  advising,  pushing,  lecturing,  commanding, 
threatening,  and  planning,  until  an  influence  was  started 
that  looked  moi'e  like  my  trial  than  the  investigation  of 
facts.  I  was  catechised  as  if  I  were  a  thief,  and  treated  as 
if  I  were  a  felon." 

Specification  5.  I  did  utter  the  language  set  forth  in 
specification  5,  of  charge  third,  but  I  deny  that  it  was 
untruthful  or  slanderous. 

Specification  6.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Agent 
made  other  untruthful  and  slanderous  utterances  in  his 
said  Baltimore  speech;  and,  taken  as  a  whole,  the  said 
speech  is  a  disgraceful  and  abominable  aspersion  of  the 
Book  Committee,  of  the  private  character  of  reputable 
persons,  and  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern. 

Specification  6.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 6,  of  charge  third. 

Specification  7.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Book  Agent 
has  frequently,  during  his  term  of  office,  charged  S.  J. 
Goodenough,  who  for  many  years  was  Superintendent 
of  the  Printing  Department  of  said  Book  Concern,  and  all 
that  time  a  member  of  the  Church  in  good  standing,  with 
abominable  crimes,  calling  him  "  that  villain,"  a  "  thief," 
a  "  robber,"  and  charging  that  he  had  stolen  from  the 
Book  Concern  thousands  of  dollars;  whereas  such  charges 
were  false. 

Specification  7.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication J,  of  charge  third.    This  specification  is  a  misrep- 


150        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

I'esentation  of  my  charges  against  Mr.  Goodenough,  which 
charges  I  believe  to  be  true  and  capable  of  proof. 

Specification  8.  In  this,  that  during  his  term  of  oflice  the 
said  Assistant  Agent,  without  cause  or  provocation,  peremp- 
torily ordered  the  Recording  Secretary  of  the  Board  of 
Managers  of  the  Missionary  Society  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church  never  to  come  into  the  office  of  said  Book 
Agents;  in  Avhich  office  said  Secretary  has  proper  occasion 
frequently  to  be  in  relation  to  the  affairs  of  said  Missionary 
Society. 

Specification  8.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 8,  of  charge  third. 

Specification  9.  In  this,  that  during  his  term  of  office,  the 
said  Assistant  Agent  has  improperly  ordered  that  books, 
pamphlets,  etc.,  intended  for  the  editorial  department  of 
the  Sunday-school  publications  of  the  Church  should  not 
be  sent  to  the  room  of  the  editor-in-chief,  as  has  always 
been  usual,  but  should  remain  with  said  Assistant  Agent, 
and  has  grossly  interfered  with  the  prerogatives  of  said 
editor-in-chief  in  respect  thereof,  and  maintained  his  right 
to  do  so  in  arbitrary  and  insulting  language.* 

Specification  9.  I  deny  the  allegation  contained  in  speci- 
fication 9,  of  charge  third. 

CHARGE  FOURTH. 

Insubordination  to  his  Official  Superiors,  the  Book  Com- 
mittee, and  Violation  of  His  Pledges  to  Them. 

Specification  1.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Agent,  during 
the  session  of  the  Book  Committee  in  Febiiiaiy,  1870,  and 
while  the  Committee  were  investigating  the  official  conduct 
of  said  Assistant  Agent,  and  his  acts  and  declarations 
respecting  the  affairs  of  said  Book  Concern,  made  concilia- 
tory pledges  to  them  to  the  effect  that,  in  his  future  conduct 
as  such  Assistant  Agent,  he  would  cooperate  with  the 
principal  Agent  in  furthering  the  interests  of  the  Book 
Concern,  and  would  not  further  agitate  the  matters  of  the 
alleged  frauds  and  losses  of  the  Concern,  or  depart  from  the 
line  of  conduct  in  respect  of  those  mattei*s  determined  upon 

*  The  investifration  of  "Specification  8"  would  have  shown  how 
re>?ular  invoices  of  books  received  from  the  "  London  Tract  Society," 
England,  were  disposed  of,  the  Concern  receiving  no  benefit,  except 
from  a  few  of  them  which  we  republished. 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         151 

by  said  Committee;  whereas,  immediately  on  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  (Committee,  the  said  Assistant  Book  Agent  set 
about  the  repetition,  printing,  and  dissemination  of  the 
same  charges  of  alleged  frauds  and  losses  in  the  said  Book 
Concern,  and  the  same  reproaches  on  its  management 
which  had  been  examined  by  the  Committee,  and  decided 
by  them  to  be  unfounded. 

ANSWER  TO  CHARGE  FOURTH. 

Specification  1.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 1,  of  charge  fourth. 

Specification  2.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Book 
Agent,  by  the  publication  and  dissemination  of  a  paper 
called  "  Statement  to  the  Book  Committee,"  signed  J. 
Lanahan,  and  otherwise,  has  reaflirmed  and  republished 
such  unfounded  charges,  and  thereby  has  fomented  and 
increased  public  excitement  and  clamor  against  said  Book 
Concern,  in  express  violation  of  his  aforesaid  pledges,  and 
in  contempt  of  the  authority  of  said  Book  Committee,  to 
the  injury  of  said  Book  Concern,  and  to  the  scandal  of  the 
Church,  whose  institution  is  thus  unwarrantably  assailed. 

Specification  2.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 2,  of  charge  fourth,  as  the  same  are  therein  set 
forth.  The  "  Statement "  referred  to  was  not  published  in 
violation  of  any  pledge,  but  was  published  during  the  ses- 
sion of  said  Book  Committee,  and  furnished  to  said  com- 
mittee in  a  printed  form  for  their  convenience. 

Specification  3.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Agent  has 
refused,  and  continues  to  refuse,  to  submit  to  the  advice, 
decision,  and  judgment  of  the  said  Book  Committee; 
arraigns  their  motives,  resists  their  authority  and  judg- 
ment, and  continues  to  make  utterances  of  a  disrespectful 
and  insubordinate  character,  in  relation  to  the  said  Book 
Committee  and  its  proper  and  ofl3cial  acts  relative  to  the 
affairs  of  said  Book  Concern. 

Specification  3.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 3,  of  charge  4,  as  set  forth.  I  have  aimed  to  treat 
the  committee  with  respect.  The  course  I  have  pursued  has 
been  dictated  by  a  due  regard  to  the  interests  of  the 
Church,  the  Book  Concern  and  the  truth;  and  I  am  confident 
will  so  appear  upon  examination. 


152        FOURTH  MEETING  OF   GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

CHARGE    FIFTH. 

Want  of  Business  Qualifications  and  Capacity  tor  tne  Pro- 
per Discharge  of  His  Official  Duties  as  Such  Assistant 
Book  Agent. 

Specification  1.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Book  Agent, 
during  his  term  of  office,  has  improperly  assumed  that 
large  losses  have  befallen  the  said  Book  Concern  from  the 
fraud  and  corruption  of  its  employees,  or  some  of  them; 
and  has  made  repeated,  and  public,  and  continuous  charges 
of  that  nature,  to  the  injury  of  the  business  of  the  Concern, 
and  the  scandal  of  the  Church;  whereas,  thei'e  was  never 
any  sufficient  ground  for  such  imputations,  nor  any  proper 
excuse  for  the  public  promulgation  of  such  charges. 

ANSWER  TO  CHARGE  FIFTH. 

Specification  1.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  specie 
flcation  1,  of  charge  fifth;  and  for  a  further  answer  I  here 
re-affirm  the  matters  already  set  forth  in  my  answer  to 
specification  6,  of  charge  first.    (Page  144.) 

Specification  2.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Book 
Agent,  during  his  term  of  office,  has  made  purchases  of 
inferior  printing  ink,  and  caused  the  same  improperly  to 
be  used  in  the  printing  of  Church  papers  and  publications, 
to  the  detriment  of  the  business  and  reputation  of  said 
Book  Concern. 

Specification  2.  I  deny  the  allegations  contained  in  speci- 
fication 2,  of  charge  fifth.  The  charge  will  be  found  too 
frivolous  for  serious  consideration. 

Specification  3.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Book  Agent 
has,  during  his  term  of  office,  made  improper  and  unbusi- 
ness-like  purchases  of  printing  paper  for  said  Book  Concern, 
to  its  pecuniary  injury  and  the  injury  of  its  reputation. 

Specification  3.  I  deny  the  allegations  set  forth  in  speci- 
fication 3,  of  charge  fifth. 

Specification  4.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Book  Agent 
has,  during  his  term  of  office,  occasioned  losses  and  a  fall- 
ing off  in  the  business  and  profits  of  the  establishment,  by 
his  aforesaid  unwaiTan table  and  public  imputations  against 
said  Book  Concern,  its  management  and  employees,  and 
by  his  aforesaid  unwarrantable  refusal  to  contradict  the 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         153 

said  libelous  article  in  the  New  York  Times,  and  the  sanc- 
tion he  has  given  to  the  damaging  imputations  of  that 
article. 

Specification  4.  I  deny  the  allegations  set  forth  in  speci- 
fication 4,  of  charge  fifth. 

Specification  5.  In  this,  that  the  said  Assistant  Book 
Agent,  in  the  particulars  aforesaid,  also  in  his  demeanor 
toward  friends  of  said  Book  Concern,  and  in  his  conduct 
and  proceedings  in  respect  of  the  publishing  business  of 
the  Church,  and  the  reputation  of  the  Book  Concern,,  has 
evinced,  and  continues  to  evince,  a  want  of  adaptability  and 
fitness  for  his  official  duties  as  Assistant  Agent  of  the 
Book  Concern,  and  a  want  of  proper  personal  interest  in 
its  welfare. 

Specification  6.  In  this,  that  said  Assistant  Book  Agent 
is  generally  deficient  in  business  tact,  qualification,  and 
capacity,  for  the  proper  discharge  of  his  official  duties  in 
said  Book  Concern. 

For  which  sufl3cient  causes,  it  is  "  necessary  for  the 
interests  of  the  Church  and  the  Concern,"  that  the  said 
John  Lanahan  should  be  suspended,  and  removed  fr-om  his 
official  relation  to  said  Methodist  Book  Concern,  as  such 
Assistant  Agent. 

Specification  5  and  Specification  6.  As  to  the  allegations 
contained  in  ;?pecifications  5  and  6,  ot  charge  fifth,  I  decline 
to  make  any  answer  until  proof  of  the  alleged  incompe- 
tency has  been  furnished. 

New  York,  April,  1870. 

We,  the  undersigned,  respectfully  request  the  Book  Com- 
mittee to  convene  and  take  action  on  the  above  charges 
and  specifications  as  soon  as  practicable.  (The  names  of 
the  signers  were  given  in  the  call  for  the  thu-d  meeting, 
see  page  123.) 

Rev.  John  Lanahan: 

Dear  Sir.— The  foregoing  is  a  copy  of  one  of  the  docu- 
ments alluded  to  in  the  inclosed  notification,  and  described 
as  marked  A  1. 

I.  S.  BINGHAM,  Sec.  of  Book  Committee. 

The  above  array  of  names,  charges  and  specifi- 
cations having  failed  to  bring  me  into  subordina- 


154        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

tion  to  the  plans  of  my  persecutors,  five  months 
after  their  presentation,  the  following  "  Supple- 
mentary Charges"  were  secretly  gotten  up  and 
presented: 

SUPPLEMENTAL  CHARGE  AND   SPECIFICATIONS. 

To  the  Book  Committee  appointed  by  the  General  Confer- 
ence of  the  M.  E.  Church: 
In  addition  to  the  charges  and  specifications  heretofore 
made  against  Rev.  John  Lanahan,  Assistant  Boole  Agent, 
the  undersigned  hereby  make  and  present  the  following 
supplemental  charge  and  specifications  against  said  Assis- 
tant Agent,  to  wit: 

CHARGE. 

Incompetency. 

Specification  1.  In  or  about  the  month  of  January,  1870, 
said  Assistant  Agent,  without  consultation  with  the  prin- 
cipal Agent,  and  without  the  knowledge  and  consent  of 
said  principal  Agent,  ordered  a  large  quantity  of  printed 
sheet-stock,  belonging  to  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  and 
of  one  or  more  books,  belonging  to  others,  to  be  sold  and 
disposed  of  as  waste  paper  with  paper  shavings;  included 
in  which  were  numerous  printed  sheets  of  salable  and 
standard  works  of  much  value,  and  some  of  which  are 
in  current  demand  for  sale  at  said  Book  Concern;  the 
total  value  of  which,  estimated  at  sales  prices,  exceeded 
thirty  thousand  dollars.  By  which  incompetent  and  im- 
provident conduct,  said  Assistant  Agent  has  subjected  said 
Book  Concern  to  large  loss  and  damage;  has  rendered  the 
same  liable  to  one  of  the  owners  of  said  books  for  his  dam- 
ages, occasioned  by  such  improper  destruction  thereof;  and 
has  subjected  the  said  Book  Concern  to  a  continuous  and 
irreparable  detriment,  for  the  want  of  a  supply  of  said 
works  thus  improperly  destroyed. 

Specification  2.  Whereas,  it  has  been  the  practice,  when 
any  sheet-stock  or  printed  works  belonging  to  the  Metho- 
dist Book  Concern  were  to  be  disposed  of  as  waste  paper, 
to  make  previous  careful  inquiry  into  the  question  of  th^ 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         155 

value  and  prospects  of  sale  of  the  same;  and  also,  before 
ordering  such  disposition  of  any  sheet-stock  or  printed 
books  of  said  Book  Concern,  to  take  the  judgment  and 
advice  of  the  principal  Agent,  the  editors,  the  salesmen,  and 
the  foreman  of  the  printing  and  bindeiT  departments  of 
the  Concern;  but  the  said  Assistant  Agent,  ignoring  such 
proper  practice  and  advice,  and  resting  the  determination 
of  such  important  question  upon  his  own  improvident  and 
incompetent  judgment,  caused  a  large  quantity  of  the  sheet- 
stock  of  said  Book  Concei'n  to  be  destroyed,  by  ordering 
the  same  sold  for  waste  paper,  as  particularly  mentioned 
in  the  aforegoing  specification,  to  the  great  loss  and  incon- 
venience of  said  Book  Concern,  and  to  the  discredit  of  its 
management. 
Dated,  New  York,  October  24,  1870. 
(Signed)  H.  F.  PEASE, 

J.  O.  HOYT, 

GEORGE  LANSING  TAYLOR, 

JOHN  H.  OCKERSHAUSEN, 

J.  R.  EDWARDS. 
A  true  copy. 

I.  S.  BINGHAM,  Sec.  of  Book  Committee. 

ANSWER  TO  THE  CHARGE  OF  INCOMPETENCY. 

In  answer  to  the  first  and  second  specifications  of  the 
"  Supplemental  charge,"  I  deny  them  both  as  set  forth. 

The  facts  in  brief  are  these: 

After  frequent  consultations  between  the  principal  agent 
and  myself  in  regard  to  renting  the  building  in  which  the 
sheet  stock  is  kept,  he  suggested  that  there  was  a  large 
amount  of  dead  stock  therein  that  ought  to  be  disposed  of, 
and  advised  that  I  attend  to  it.  Accordingly,  I  requested 
the  Superintendent  of  the  Bindei-y  to  examine  and  select 
said  stock  with  care  and  dispose  of  the  same,  which  he 
did  subsequently,  making  a  proper  report,  which  was  duly 
entered  on  the  books  of  the  house. 

The  value  of  this  dead  stock  is  grossly  exaggerated,  and 
the  statements  contained  in  the  specifications  convey  a 
false  impression. 

Dated,  New  York,  January  12,  1871. 

JOHN  LANAHAN. 


156        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

By  way  of  further  emphasizing  the  absolute 
unfairness  and  injustice  of  the  Committee's  pro- 
ceedings, I  may  here  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  in  all  civilized  tribunals  before  which  char- 
ges are  preferred,  it  is  required  that  the  accused 
be  given  formal  notice,  and  be  furnished  a  copy  of 
the  charges.  In  the  former  case,  as  I  have  stat- 
ed, the  charges  came  to  me  anonymously,  through 
the  mail,  from  whom  I  never  learned.  But 
in  this  case,  my  first  information  was  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  "  Supplementary  Charges  "  by 
the  Chairman,  and  the  reading  of  them  by  the 
Secretary  to  the  Committee!  Perhaps  this  sud- 
den affair  was  intended  as  a  surprise,  especially 
as  the  meeting  was  held  at  Cincinnati,  far  off 
from  my  sources  of  information.  If  so,  it  was 
abortive.  Such  had  been  the  conduct  and  meth- 
ods of  the  Committee,  that  no  action  of  theirs 
could  surprise  me.  I  immediately  telegraphed 
to  New  York,  and  by  mail  received  a  copy  of  a 
paper  on  file  in  the  Printing  Department,  in 
the  handwriting  of  S.  J.  Goodenough,  dated 
January,  1868,  showing  that  the  "dead  stock" 
had  been  listed  "condemned"  four  months  be- 
fore my  connection  with  the  Book  Concern.  A 
portion  of  the  stock  that  had  been  so  marked, 
I  refused  to  allow  to  be  sold.  Of  it,  I  distinctly 
recall  the  works  of  Rev.  Dr.  Jabez  Bunting,  a 
fraternal  delegate  from  the  Wesleyan  Confer- 
ence, England,  to  the  General  Conference  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  several  years  before. 

I  also  cited  as  evidence  of  the  great  reck- 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         157 

lessness  in  the  printing  of  unsalable  books,  the 
statement  of  the  Agents  in  their  report  to  the 
General  Conference  a  few  years  before,  that  they 
had  sold  at  one  time  "forty-seven  tons  of  dead 
stock,  at  |55  per  ton;  also  a  large  quantity  of 
bound  books,"  The  Committee,  however,  enter- 
tained the  supplementary  charges,  and  would 
no  doubt  have  done  so,  even  if  I  had  shown  that 
there  had  been  no  dead  stock  sold,  or  that  Dr. 
Carlton  or  Goodenough  had  sold  it,  and  invested 
the  money  in  one  or  more  of  their  numerous  oil 
wells. 

After  the  charges,  specifications  and  answers 
were  read,  Eev.  Bishop  Janes  appeared  before 
the  Committee,  and  presented  the  following: 

To  the  Book  Committee  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church: 
Dear  Brothers. — In  our  relations  to  the  Book  Committee 
we  desire  to  act  on  all  questions  with  the  utmost  frankness 
and  courtesy.  Heretofore  we  have  not  been  consulted  by 
your  body  as  to  the  questions  involved  in  this  investigation. 
Of  this  we  do  not  complain;  but  it  seems  to  us  a  point  has 
now  been  reached  when  courtesy  to  the  Committee,  as  well 
as  a  due  regard  to  our  own  responsibilities  in  the  premises, 
require  us  to  make  the  following  statement: 

1.  In  meeting  with  the  Book  Committee  at  their  request 
to  act  concurrently  with  them  in  this  investigation,  we 
must  not  be  understood  as  sharing  in  any  sense  or  to  any 
extent  the  responsibility  of  receiving  or  entertaining  char- 
ges against  an  Editor  or  Agent,  prepared  or  presented  as 
these  have  been.  Yet,  as  these  charges  have  been  received 
or  entertained  by  the  Committee,  we  consider  it  to  be  a 
duty  to  proceed  with  them  in  the  investigation. 

2.  We  cannot  act  as  a  concurrent  authority  in  any  inves 
tigation,  except  as  to  the  official  conduct  of  our  Editor  or 
Agent 

The  Agents  and  the  Editors,  if  travelling  preachers,  are 
amenable  for  their  moral  and  ministerial  conduct  to  the 


158        FOURTH  MEETING  OP  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

same  ecclesiastical  authority  as  are  other  ministers  of  the 
Church.  They  are  members  of  Annual  Conferences  and 
are  officially  connected  with  quarterly  conferences,  and  are 
thus  placed  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  presiding  elder 
in  the  interval  of  the  Annual  Conferences.  As  Bishops  we 
cannot  consider  and  give  official  decisions  upon  such  mat- 
ters as  come  properly  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Annual 
Conferences  when  in  session,  or  of  presiding  elders  in  the 
interval  of  said  Conference. 

3.  It  has  long  been  a  rule  in  our  judicial  administration 
not  to  allow  third  parties  to  prefer  charges  of  slander  or 
of  slanderous  utterances,  and  this  administration  has  never 
been  excepted  to  by  the  General  Conference.  We  must 
abide  by  this  rule  in  tliis  investigation,  so  far  as  we  are 
concerned. 

4.  We  do  not  judge  it  proper  for  us  to  consider  the  gen- 
eral fitness  or  unfitness  for  the  office  of  any  man  appointed 
by  the  General  Conference  as  editor  or  agent,  unless  the 
cause  of  such  alleged  unfitness  has  occurred  since  his 
election.  As  provided  in  the  Discipline,  we  may,  in  given 
contingencies^  pass  upon  official  conduct,  but  not  upon 
general  fitness  for  office,  except  as  above. 

E.  S.  JANES,  M.  SIMPSON, 

L.  SCOTT,  E.  R.  AMES. 

The  presentation  of  the  above  was  followed  by 
much  discussion.  Some  of  the  Committee  advo- 
cating a  change  of  the  charges  and  specifica- 
tions, the  minority  insisting  that  they  had  no 
right  to  change  them  after  the  trial  had  com- 
menced. By  a  majority  vote  it  was  decided  that 
they  had  the  right.  In  all  their  previous  meet- 
ings they  had  acted  upon  the  principle  that  they 
had  a  right  to  do  as  they  pleased,  because  they 
were  the  Book  Committee.  And  why  relinquish 
that  right  now,  when  a  crisis  had  come,  not  to 
the  accused  victim  of  their  persecution,  but  to 
themselves? 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         159 

They  saw  that  somethiug  more  important  to 
themselves  than  the  Book  Concern  was  in  dan- 
ger, and  that  ordinary  rules  and  principles  how- 
ever well  established  must  be  pushed  aside. 

Another  annoyance  came,  when  Dr.  Buckley 
inquired,  whether  Rev.  George  Taylor's  name 
remained  annexed  to  the  charges,  and  read  the 
following  letter,  which  had  been  addressed  to 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar: 

To  the  Rev.  J.  Lanahan,  D.  D.: 

My  Dear  Sir.— I  feel  I  owe  you  a  correct  statement  of 
the  occasion  of  my  name  appearing  on  the  paper  presented 
to  the  Book  Committee.  I  had  no  linowledge  of  the  Book 
Room  afifairs,  and  took  no  interest  in  them  more  than  peo- 
ple who  read  our  public  papers.  I  learned  from  these  that 
a  controversy  was  going  on  respecting  the  policy  pursued 
by  former  officials,  and  that  it  was  exceedingly  desirable 
that  peace  should  be  restored  as  soon  as  possible.  I  was 
requested  at  the  Book  Room  to  sign  a  paper  which  was 
said  to  have  been  gotten  up  by  a  layman  who  seemed  to 
have  the  desire  to  have  things  settled,  and  to  think  that 
your  policy  was  an  injuiy  to  the  Book  Concern;  that  the 
Committee  ought  to  be  called  together  to  make  a  complete 
arrangement  and  settlement  of  matters,  and  that  a  few 
names  only  were  necessary  to  accomplish  this.  The  paper 
was  read,  and  without  the  deliberation  necessary  on  such 
an  occasion,  I  hastily  signed  it — signed  it  without  malice 
or  ill-feeling,  and  with  the  idea  it  was  to  be  a  peace- 
measure.  I  trusted  to  the  judgment  of  others,  without 
examining  the  contents  and  forming  a  personal  judgment 
about  it;  that  is,  I  signed  it  because  it  was  requested,  and 
supposed  it  would  ultimate  in  good  for  all  concerned. 
Since  then,  I  found  I  was  mistaken.  In  conversing  with 
Dr.  Whedon,  and  other  pereons,  who  know  more  about 
these  things  than  I  do,  I  ascertained  that  my  judgment 
was  misled.  I  learned  that  your  policy  resulted  in  an 
improved  standard  of  literature;  that  you  were  gentlemanly 
in  bearing,  and  more  than  this,  that  the  only  possible  way 
to  settle  matters  at  present  would  be  by  an  appeal  to  the 


160        FOUETH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

civil   courts,   wliere  you   could   compel   tlie  attendance   of 
•witnesses,  and  such  a  course  you  desired. 

If  I  had  known  these  things,  I  should  never  have  signed 
the  paper.  If  I  had  suspected  an  evil  animus  prompting 
the  getting  up  of  the  paper,  I  should  not  have  signed  it. 
I  did,  without  taking  the  time  to  canvass  the  merits  of 
the  case,  what  I  feel  I  ought  not  to  have  done,  but  1 
have  expressed  no  judgment  of  the  case  to  any  one,  and 
intend  to  do  all  I  can  to  make  the  paper  in  the  hands  of 
the  Court  a  dead  letter,  and  to  oppose  any  further  action 
on  the  subject,  and  thus  undo  what  I  have  done,  if  within 
the  range  of  possibility.  I  voted  for  you  at  the  General 
Conference,  and  expressed  a  friendly  welcome  when  you 
came  here,  and  have  never  had  any  reason  not  to  continue 
friendly.  I  hope  you  will  be  divinely  guided  through  all 
your  tribulations,  and  may  you  enjoy  the  peace  of  God. 

I  hope  you  will  accept  this  explanation  of  the  circum- 
stances of  my  signing  the  paper  as  a  sincere  statement, 
and  rest  assured  of  my  regret,  and  of  my  good  feeling 
toward  you.    Ever  yours,    in   friendly   regard, 

GEORGE  TAYLOR. 

Flushing,  L.  I.,  June  4th,  1870. 

Dr.  Buckley  further  annoyed  the  Committee 
by  requesting  that  the  signers  of  the  charges  be 
required  to  appear  to  be  questioned  as  to  their 
knowledge  of  the  matters  involved,  and  said: 
"Seventeen  ministers  and  laymen  signed  the 
charges,  and  I  will  prove  by  eight  of  them  that 
they  had  never  read  the  paper  they  had  signed." 

Dr.  Henry  Slicer  said,  "The  persons  who 
signed  the  charges  know  nothing  about  the  sub- 
ject matter.  They  were  asked  to  put  their 
names  upon  a  paper,  and  did  so,  as  a  certain  kind 
of  people  might  do  to  hang  a  respectable  indi- 
vidual, without  knowing  anything  of  the  motives 
of  the  persons  requesting  them  to  sign.  They 
might  have  gotten  seventeen  hundred  signers. 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         161 

I  now  move,  sir,  that  tlie  signers  of  these  charges 
be  required  to  appear  here  to  be  questioned." 
The  Chairman  decided  that  he  had  no  authority 
to  send  for  the  signers,  and  the  Committee  sus- 
tained his  decision. 
Dr.  Buckley  renewed  his  request,  and  said: 

It  is  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  discipline,  which  requires 
that  accusers  and  accused  be  brought  face  to  face. 
I  will  undertake  to  prove  that  there  are  not  three  of 
them  who  know  anything  about  the  affair,  i  will  under- 
take to  prove  that  four  of  them  would  be  as  willing  to 
sign  a  bill  of  charges  against  Dr.  Carlton  as  against  Dr. 
Lanahan;  that  a  deliberate  plan  was  arranged  to  secure 
these  signers,  and  that  they  signed  in  response  to  a 
request,  and  that  this  thing  was  never  investigated  by 
the  Committee,  but  with  remarkable  rapidity  they  accepted 
these  statements,  allowing  them  to  come  by  a  president 
and  secretary  without  ever  taking  the  pains  to  inquire 
whether  a  large  majority  of  the  signers  instructed  these 
persons  to  represent  them  or  whether  they  acted  unani- 
mously. We  will  undertake  to  prove  further  that  if  these 
men  are  brought  here,  several  will  be  found  who  will  say 
that  they  were  made  fools  of.  We  will  prove  tliat  they 
have  said  it  to  responsible  persons.  We  want  to  know  why 
they  have  brought  these  allegations.  We  ask  that,  before 
the  investigation  proceeds,  the  signers  of  this  bill  of  charges 
be  brought  before  us  that  we  may  kno-w  why  they  signed 
it.    We  claim  it  as  a  reasonable  request. 

Further  objections  were  made  and  Rev.  F.  A. 
Blades,  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  said: 

The  signers  of  the  charges  have  appointed  their  Chair- 
man and  Secretary  to  appear,  and  as  they  have  appeared 
before  the  Committee,  that  is  sufficient. 

Mr.  Buckley  pressed  his  point  again.    He  said: 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  will  make  our  request  in  due  form. 
There  seems  to  be  a  misunderstanding  as  to  what  we  want. 


162        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

I  wish,  sir,  that  we— not  the  Committee— may  meet  our 
accusers  face  to  face.  We  are  not  content  to  have  a  secre- 
tary and  chairman  of  some  committee  that  met— we  cannot 
tell  where  or  under  what  circumstances— and  were 
wrought  upon  by  influences  we  know  not  what— come  and 
say  that  they  were  authorized  to  represent  the  prosecutors. 
It  has  been  intimated  by  the  Secretary  of  this  Committee 
that  Dr.  Lanahan  might  have  refused  to  come  here.  I 
think  if  Dr.  Lanahan  had  not  come  here  it  would  only  be 
right  to  take  his  absence  as  prima  facie  evidence  of  guilt. 
We  ask  to  meet  these  men.  We  have  met  them  in  private, 
and  some  of  them  apologized  to  us.  They  have  said  they 
did  not  know  what  they  were  about.  Some  of  them  say  they 
would  have  just  as  soon  charged  Dr.  Carlton.  We  do  not 
wish  to  delay  this  investigation,  but  we  consider  this  a 
reasonable  request— that  all  the  signers  of  this  bill  of 
charges  be  requested  to  appear  here  as  soon  as  possible. 
We  shall  see  how  many  of  them  will  come. 

The  Secretary  declared  that  he  would  resign 
rather  than  sign  such  an  order  as  Dr.  Buckley 
requested.  The  Chairman  again  ruled  out  the 
request  and  a  majority  sustained  the  ruling. 

Civilization,  to  say  nothing  of  Christianity  and 
the  law  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  re- 
quires that  accusers  and  accused  be  brought  face 
to  face.  But  the  Book  Committee  were  superior 
to  all  authority  and  usage,  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical, and  in  all  cases  ruled  to  protect  themselves 
from  the  exposure  impending  and  the  accom- 
plishment of  the  object  for  which  they  had  met — 
namely  to  get  me  out  of  the  way. 

After  some  further  discussion,  the  order  of  the 
day  was,  on  motion,  resumed. 

Mr.  Fancher,  for  the  prosecution,  offered  in 
evidence  a  copy  of  the  New  York  Times,  Septem- 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         163 

ber  21st,  ^869,  containing  an  article  on  the  al- 
leged frauds  in  the  Book  Concern. 

Judge  Reynolds.— I  object.  This  is  entirely  out  of  the 
usual  course  of  testimony.  You  must  first  show  that  Dr. 
Lanahan  was  responsible  for  the  article  in  the  Times. 

The  Chairman  ruled  the  objection  out  and  the 
Times  was  admitted,  but  not  referred  to  after- 
ward. 

Dr.  Curry,  Editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate, 
was  called  by  the  prosecution,  and  before  his 
cross-examination  was  ended  the  Committee 
sought  their  usual  resort — secret  session.  It  be- 
came apparent  that  they  saw  they  were  about  to 
be  shamefully  exposed  and  humiliated.  When 
they  resumed  open  session  they  ordered  the  stop- 
page of  taking  testimony,  and  sought  shelter  un- 
der quibbles  about  the  Bishops'  paper.  The  time 
to  have  done  that  was  on  the  presentation  of  the 
paper,  but  they  had  been  so  accustomed  to  dis- 
regard order,  propriety,  right  and  justice,  every 
thing — that  they  felt  free  to  do  what  they 
thought  would  best  serve  their  purpose,  which 
was  to  shield  themselves  from  exposure  by  get- 
ting the  Assistant  Agent  out  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern. His  assistance  had  been  of  a  disagreeable 
kind,  and  that  had  made  him  a  disagreeable 
character.  Kev.  J.  H.  Moore  led  off  against  the 
Bishops.  The  result  shows  how  completely  their 
quibbles  were  exposed: 

Mr.  Moore  said: — There  is  one  statement  which  I  wish 
to  contradict,  and  that  is,  that  the  Bishops  have  never  been 


164        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COlvrMITTEE. 

consulted  with  regard  to  this  trial.  It  may  be  truthfully 
declared  that,  officially,  the  Committee  has  not  consulted 
with  the  Bishops  in  the  course  which  it  has  seen  fit  to 
pursue  in  the  charges  against  Dr.  Lanahan;  but  the  Bishops 
have  been  privately  consulted  by  members  individually  in 
their  efforts  to  subserve  the  interests  of  the  Book  Concern. 
These  troubles  came  under  our  knowledge  as  guai-dians  of 
the  Book  Concern,  and  in  the  interests  of  the  Church,  we 
investigated  the  charges  preferred  by  Dr.  Lanahan.  Char- 
ges were  subsequently  made  against  Dr.  Lanahan,  and  in 
our  official  capacity,  we  decided  that  the  Assistant  Book 
Agent  should  be  suspended  from  office.  For  the  first  time, 
the  Bishops  ai'e  now  offlciallj''  called  upon  to  act  as  a 
concurrent  authority,  but  they  have  frequently  been  con- 
sulted privately  by  members  of  the  Committee,  and  have 
given  counsel  in  this  matter. 

Bishop  Simpson.— Do  I  understand  my  friend  to  say  that 
the  Bishops  have  been  consulted  previously  in  this  case? 
I  understand  him  to  say  that  they  had  been  consulted.  All 
I  have  to  say  is  that  I  .have  not  been  consulted;  my  col- 
leagues can  answer  for  themselves. 

Bishop  Scott.— I  have  never,  in  a  single  instance;  not  a 
single  word  has  been  said  to  me. 

Bishop  Ames.— To  the  best  of  my  recollection,  I  have 
never  been  consulted  in  any  instance. 

Bishop  Janes.— The  language  of  Mr.  Moore  that  we  have 
been  consulted  about  these  Book  Room  troubles,  in  my 
judgment,  is  wholly  inappropriate  to  our  paper.  Our  paper 
refei-s  simply  to  tliis  investigation.  On  this  subject  I  say 
I  have  not  been  consulted.  I  spoke  to  two  of  the  membei-s 
of  the  Committee,  and  expressed  to  those  members  my 
opinion  of  some  of  those  charges— that  they  did  not  come 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Committee.  Mr.  Moore  was 
one,  and  the  chairman  was  the  other.  That  is  the  consul- 
tation so  far  as  I  am  concerned. 

Mr.  Moore. — I  had  no  reference  to  the  present  position 
of  things  as  to  the  arrest  and  charges  preferred  against 
Dr.  Lanahan.  I  meant  simply  to  declare  that  members 
of  the  Committee  had  entertained  so  much  confidence  in 
the  Bishops  that  they  would  not  for  a  moment  hesitate  to 
confer  with  them  in  reference  to  any  prudential  measure 
connected  with  the  troubles  of  the  Book  Concern.  I  did  not 
for  a  moment  wish  to  be  understood  that  in  any  injudicious 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         165 

manner  the  Bishops  had  been  tampered  with.  I  now  say 
that  the  Committee  never  was  under  any  obligation  to  con- 
sult the  Bishops  until  they  had  determined  to  arrest  Dr. 
Lanahan,  and  had  determined  to  inform  them  in  pursuance 
of  the  law  of  the  Church.  I  only  wished  to  say  that  this 
Committee  felt  no  disposition  to  stand  aloof  from  the 
Bishops  or  to  conceal  anything  from  them. 

Bishop  Janes. — We  said  in  the  paper  that  we  had  not 
been  consulted  by  your  body  as  to  the  questions  involved 
in  the  investigations;  we  have  been  consulted  in  the  gen- 
eral interests  of  the  Book  Concern;  I  was  so  consulted 
quite  as  much  as  I  desired  to  be.  In  regard  to  the  manner 
of  this  trial  the  Bishops  have  never  felt  that  the  Com- 
mittee was  under  any  obligations  to  consult  with  them; 
we  do  not  complain  of  it— we  never  have  complained  of 
it— but  we  simply  have  expressed  the  rule  Avhich  we  think 
must  govern  us;  we  waited  until  the  charges  had  been 
read  and  responded  to,  and  the  counsel  representing  the 
prosecutors  rose  to  make  his  opening  speech,  and  we  felt 
that  then  was  the  time  to  state  to  the  Committee,  not 
what  should  goA^em  them,  but  what  must  govern  us. 

Mr.  Woodruff.— I  am  under  the  impression  that  this  in- 
vestigation may  now  go  on.  The  Book  Committee  have 
the  charge  of  this  investigation;  the  Bishops  are  the  con- 
current authority.  It  is  nothing  to  us  what  they  do.  They 
must  act  for  themselves,  and  on  their  own  responsibility. 
We  have  our  duty,  and  must  be  answerable  for  ourselves— 
though  I  think  that  the  Committee  have  the  right  to  feel 
sensitive  at  any  seeming  public  condemnation  at  this  stage 
of  the  proceedings,  and  therefore  I  think  the  inquiries  of 
Mr.  Moore  are  pertinent. 

Bishop  Janes.— The  Bishops  in  executive  session  present- 
ed a  paper  showing  what  they  considered  to  be  their  privi- 
leges. A  question  was  asked  of  us  about  the  open  doors, 
and  that  was  the  only  question  submitted  to  us.  If  the 
Committee  accept  our  statement,  all  right;  if  they  do  not, 
we  cannot  help  it.  We  have  no  sensitiveness;  Ave  intend 
calmly,  and  in  the  fear  of  God,  to  meet  our  responsibilities, 
and  whether  we  are  complained  of  by  the  Committee  or 
not. 

The  Secretarj'.— The  Committee  have  not  complained  of 
the  paper  presented  by  the  Bishops.  On  the  first  day  of 
the  session,  we  called  an  executive  session,  with  a  view  of 


166        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

consulting  the  Bishops  officially,  and  we  did  consult  with 
them  on  the  very  first  question.  We  wanted  their  counsel, 
but  they  refused  to  give  it.  I  regret  any  seeming  condem- 
nation of  our  pi'ocedure. 

Bishop  Simpson  replied:  Whatever  may  have  been  in  the 
past,  the  Bishops  and  the  Book  Committee  never  had  any 
coordinate  legal  relation  until  the  Bishops  received  a  note 
from  the  Book  Committee  requesting  them  to  be  here. 
Then  commenced  their  relations  in  this  investigation.  In 
obedience  to  that  note,  the  Bishops  who  are  present  came. 
The  Bishops  thought  proper  to  communicate  to  the  Com- 
mittee the  part  they  understood  themselves  entitled  to  take 
in  this  investigation.  They  are  not  part  of  the  Committee, 
and  have  no  voice  in  the  rules  of  order;  but  they  had  a 
right  to  ask  for  any  information  to  enable  them  to  form 
a  correct  judgment.  Up  to  the  reading  of  the  document  in 
this  Committee,  the  Bishops,  as  a  body— I,  myself,  for 
one — had  never  seen  the  charges.  They  find  that  some  of 
the  specifications  were  couched  in  language  which  they 
doubted  the  admissibility  of.  They  thought  it  was  their 
duty  to  say  to  the  Committee  how  far  they  considered 
themselves  authorized  to  go.  Had  that  bill  of  charges  been 
submitted  to  the  Bishops  in  executive  session,  and  they 
had  been  asked  how  far  they  could  sit,  they  would  have 
much  preferred  to  give  the  Committee  alone  their  opinion. 
But  they  never  were  presented  to  them.  They  never  had 
seen  them  as  a  whole  until  they  were  presented  here; 
and  they  thought  it  was  a  duty  to  the  Committee  and  to 
themselves,  under  their  responsibility  to  the  General  Con- 
ference, to  state  that  they  could  not  go  into  the  investiga- 
tion of  moral  character.  Now,  whatever  the  Committee 
may  think  of  the  wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  this  course,  the 
Bishops  hold  that  they  are  at  liberty  only  to  do  the  work 
which  the  General  Conference  gives  them  to  do.  If  the 
Bishops  had  allowed  the  Committee  to  proceed  for  days 
with  this  investigation,  and  then  said,  "  We  do  not  think 
these  things  come  within  our  prerogative,"  then  the  Com- 
mittee would  have  had  a  right  to  complain,  and  say: 
"  Why  didn't  you  say  this  before? "  We  presented  that 
paper  the  first  time  we  could.  I  do  not  believe  that  it 
was  anything  but  kind  feeling  toward  tho  Committee  on 
the  part  of  the  Bishops. 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         167 

From  the  above  it  is  apparent  that  the  Com- 
mittee wanted  the  Bishops  to  have  carried  on 
a  kind  of  hugger-mugger  with  them,  just  as  they, 
at  their  previous  meetings  had  hugger-muggered 
with  the  official  editors,  the  Senior  Agent,  the 
Agents  of  the  Western  Book  Concern,  and  Mr. 
E.  L.  Fancher,  all  of  whom  were  bent  on  forcing 
me  out  of  the  Book  Concern,  regardless  of  the 
means  employed.  When  was  it  ever  heard  that 
a  court  of  last  resort  hugger-muggered  with  a 
lower  court  to  keep  it  from  blundering,  or  help 
it  commit  crimes?  I  greatly  preferred  that  the 
trial  should  go  on  as  it  was  proceeding,  or  as  the 
charges  might  be  "amended" — anything — for  I 
was  prepared  to  scatter  them  and  their  authors, 
as  chaff  before  the  wind,  and  they  evidently  real- 
ized it. 

The  Committee  was  now  on  trial  instead  of 
"the  accused."  They  saw  that  the  testimony 
would  reveal  to  the  Church  and  the  public  a 
state  of  things  which  they  could  not  under 
any  circumstances  allow  to  be  exposed,  and  to 
get  out  of  the  net  of  their  own  weaving  they 
again  betook  themselves  to  their  favorite  resort 
— secret  session — from  which  reporters  for  the 
press  and  the  public  were  excluded.  It  wasi  the 
spectacle  of  a  tribunal  that  united  in  itself  the 
prerogatives  of  judge  and  jury  in  the  midst  of 
a  trial,  stopping  proceedings  to  hold  secret  con- 
sultations affecting  the  accused,  and  he  not 
allowed  to  be  present!  Outside  the  Spanish  In- 
quisition, I  judge  the  like  was  never  heard  of 


1G8        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

before — ^among  civilized  people  at  least.  But,  as 
I  have  said,  the  Committee  was  now  on  trial, 
and  were  thus  forced  by  the  circumstances  of 
their  extraordinary  position,  to  do  extraordi- 
nary things.  I  made  no  objection;  it  would  have 
been  useless  to  have  done  so,  but  calmly  awaited 
their  return  to  publicity,  prepared  to  meet  any 
new  turn  they  might  give  to  the  pending  issue. 
They  remained  in  their  hiding  place  three  days 
planning  a  way  of  escape  for  themselves.  Dur- 
ing those  days  propositionsi  were  sent  to  me  for 
"a  settlement  of  the  difficulties."  Among  them 
the  withdrawal  of  the  charges  and  the  abandon- 
ment of  the  suit  by  Goodenough,  to  which  I  made 
but  one  reply:  "  The  trial  must  go  on  or  an  hon- 
est examination  of  my  charges  must  be  had." 
To  get  that  I  was  willing  to  endure  any  amount 
of  injustice.  Finally,  during  secret  session,  the 
Committee,  without  any  assent  from  me,  decided 
to  withdraw  the  charges;  abandon  the  trial; 
reinstate  me  in  my  office;  and  order  the  exami- 
nation which  I  demanded — all  of  which  was  an 
open  confession  of  their  guilt,  and  that  they, 
not  the  signers,  controlled  the  charges!  Accord- 
ingly, when  public  session  was  resumed,  the  fol- 
lowing was  presented  and  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  all  questions  of  business  an-angements 
and  methods  in  the  Book  Concern  be  referred  to  a  sub- 
committee of  three  members  of  this  General  Committee, 
and  Rev.  Bishop  Scott,  which  committee  shall  have  power 
to  call  to  their  aid  such  accountants  as  they  may  deem 
necessary,  and  that  the  decisions  of  all  questions  of  law 
which  may  arise,  and  also  of  the  approval  of  the  selection 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         169 

of  accountants,  be  refeired  to  Rev.  Bishop  Scott  and  B. 
L.  Faneher,  and  Hon.  G.  G.  Kej^nolds.  This  sub-committee 
make  their  report  to  tlae  General  Committee  at  their  annual 
meeting  in  February,  1872,  so  that  the  matter  referred  to, 
with  all  necessary  information,  may  be  presented  by  the 
Committee  in  their  quadrennial  report  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1872. 

(For  the  action  of  tliis  Sub-committee,  see  next 
Chapter.)-  /  ^ <f 

Immediately  upon  the  adoption  of  the  above, 
on  motion  of  Rev.  L.  M.  Vernon,  the  following 
was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  Dr.  Lanahan's  suspension  ceased  on  the 
adoption  of  the  foregoing  i-esolution,  and  that  he  continues 
in  the  full  exercise  of  his  office. 

I  h^d  instructed  my  counsel  not  to  withdraw 
my  answer  unless  the  charges  were  unqualifiedly 
withdrawn,  and  to  put  the  withdrawal  in  writ- 
ing to  prevent  misrepresentation  by  the  Com- 
mittee, and  the  Christian  Advocate.  The  fol- 
lowing is  given  as  reported  in  the  New  York 
papers: 

Mr.  Faneher,  senior  counsel  for  the  complainants,  of- 
fered to  withdraw  the  charges  on  condition  that  the  an- 
swers to  them  be  withdrawn.  Judge  Reynolds,  counsel  for 
the  defense,  replied:  "The  answers  cannot  be  withdrawn 
while  the  charges  or  allegations  stand  against  them." 
Whereupon  Mr.  Faneher  said:  "  I  will  not  stand  upon  tech- 
nicality, but  will  lead  in  the  matter  and  withdraw  the 
charges." 

Judge  Reynolds  then  read  the  following  re- 
sponse: 

The  charges  and  specifications  against  Dr.  Lanahan 
having  been  withdrawn,  I  am  now  authorized  by  him  to 

*  The  appointment  of  the  above  elaborate  committee  was  a 
trick  to  stop  the  trial  and  escape  exposure  of  the  corruption 
of  a  majoritj'  of  the  committee. 


170        FOURTH  MEETING  OF   GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

withdraw  the  answer  to  the  same.  This  must  be  distinctly 
understood  to  be  by  no  agreement  or  preconcert,  but  it  is 
in  consequence  of  the  voluntary  withdrawal  of  the  charges 
and   specifications. 

GEORGE  G.  REYNOLDS. 

Three  members  of  the  majority  presented  a 
protest  against  the  withdrawal  of  the  cliarges, 
and  assigned  the  following  reasons: 

1.  Because,  having  received  and  entertained  the  charges, 
and  cited  the  party  concerned  to  appear,  and  who  accord- 
ingly is  present,  and  prepared  and  willing  to  proceed,  and 
becaiTse  the  investigation  has  already  commenced,  the 
charges  having  been  read  and  responded  to,  we  know  of 
no  sufficient  cause  for  such  suspension. 

2.  Because  we  are  satisfied  that  the  Church  expects,  and 
has  a  right  to  demand,  such  investigation  at  our  hands, 
and  will  be  satisfied  with  nothing  less. 

3.  Because  we  cannot  consent  to  place  ourselves  before 
the  community  in  a  light  subjecting  us,  with  apparent 
cause,  to  the  charge  of  covering  up  and  concealing  wrong. 

"  Covering  up  and  concealing  wrong  "  had  been 
practiced  from  the  beginning,  and  those  protest- 
ants  had  been  active  participants  in  it,  but  they 
were  not  of  the  managing  members,  and  seemed 
not  to  realize  the  impending  humiliation  which, 
awaited  themselves  and  their  associates  if  the 
trial  had  gone  on. 

At  the  close  of  the  trial,  I  received  the  follow- 
ing letter  from  a  prominent  lawj^er  and  honored 
member  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
whose  knowledge  of  the  case  was  gotten  from 
the  published  proceedings.  I  have  never  met 
him,  but  when  I  determined  to  publish  this  nar- 
rative, upon  application,  he  promptly  gave  per- 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         171 

mission  to  include  his  letter.  It  shows  how  fully 
the  merits  of  the  case  were  comprehended  by 
an  outsider: 

JAMES  F.  RUSLING, 

Counsellor-at-Law, 

Office  18  P:ast  State  Street, 

Trenton,  N.  J.,  January  23d,  1871. 
Rev.  Dr.  Lanahan: 

My  Dear  Sir  and  Brother.— If  it  is  not  too  late,  pray 
allow  me  to  congratulate  you  on  your  restoration  again  to 
duty.  A  complainant  arraigned  by  the  complained  of — an 
accuser  on  trial  by  the  accused — a  pi'osecutor  of  the  pleas 
prosecuted  by  the  criminal  at  the  bar — was  a  spectacle  to 
make  both  men  and  angels  shudder!  But  now  that  this 
hideous  mockery  of  both  law  and  justice  has  collapsed,  I 
don't  know  which  to  wonder  at  most— the  essential  wick- 
edness of  the  Committee,  or  its  fatuity.  The  Bishops 
behaved  nobly,  and  they  deserve  the  thanks  of  the  Church 
and  of  the  world,  for  their  pure  and  unadulterated  good 
sense.  Meanwhile,  I  rejoice,  that  a  trustworthy  commis- 
sion has  been  created  to  take  up  your  investigation  and 
probe  the  Concern  to  the  bottom.  If  there  is  not  something 
"  rotten "  in  that  ''  State  of  Denmark,"  then  the  Book 
Committee  are  void  of  common  sense.  Supposing  the  Con- 
cei'n  to  be  "  fishy,"  they  have  acted  now  just  as  they  would 
have  acted  then.  I  am  glad  you  have  stood  firm,  and  God 
has  vindicated  you— He  always  will,  when  we  stand  to 
our  pins! 

Rejoicing  with  you  every  way,  and  bidding  you  "  God- 
speed," I  remain. 

Very  truly,  JAS.  F.  RUSLING. 

The  following  editorial,  from  the  pen  of  that 
eminent  Presbyterian  Divine,  Dr.  Irenaeus  Prime, 
in  the  New  York  Ohserver,  January  26th,  1871, 
further  shows  the  estimate  of  the  case  by  un- 
prejudiced minds  without: 

This  case  has  become  one  of  public  interest,  and  one 
in  which  the  interests  of  the  public,  and  especially  of  the 


172        FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE. 

whole  Christian  Church  are  concerned.  The  public  demand 
—and  they  have  a  right  to  demand  in  the  name  of  com- 
mon honesty,  and  the  whole  Church  demands  in  the  name 
of  our  common  Christianity— that  a  thorough,  impartial 
investigation  of  the  original  charges  against  the  manage- 
ment of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  be  now  made.  If 
this  is  not  done,  public  morals  and  religion  will  receive  a 
heavier  bloAV  than  any  that  could  be  aimed  by  the  avowed 
enemies  of  truth  and  righteousness. 

The  sudden  collapse  of  the  trial  of  Dr.  Lanahan,  his 
reinstatement  into  office  by  the  men  who  suspended  him 
before  trying  him,  and  the  abandonment  of  all  attempt  to 
prove  anything  wrong  in  him,  while  a  Committee  is  set 
to  investigate  the  Book  Concern  management,  constitute 
a  remarkable  vindication  of  Dr.  Lanahan's  honesty,  fidelity 
and  courage.  His  accusers  ought  now  to  be  prosecuted, 
unless  they  speedily  repent. 

It  is  thus  God  interposes  to  deliver  his  sei'vants  in  the 
hour  of  their  peril.  It  appeared  to  be  a  foregone  conclu- 
sion, as  Dr.  Lanahan  Avas  to  be  tried  by  the  same  Commit- 
tee which  had  hastily  suspended  him  without  trial,  that  he 
would  be  iucontineutl}^  condemned  by  those  who  had  in- 
jured liim  already.  But  the  trial  had  scarcely  begun  before 
it  was  perceived  that  his  accusers  were  on  trial,  and  not 
the  prisoner  at  the  bar.  Something  must  be  done,  and 
it  was  done.  The  trial  was  abandoned.  The  charges  were 
all  withdrawn.  The  prisoner  was  restored  to  liberty  and 
power. 

And  now  a  Committee  is  to  overhaul  the  Book  Concern. 
It  is  not  such  a  Committee  as  ought  to  have  it  in  charge. 
It  is  composed  of  three  members  of  this  same  court  that 
was  ti-ying  Dr.  Lanahan.  Not  one  of  that  Committee  ought 
to  be  on  it.  Outside  men,  business  men,  laj^men,  Methodists, 
if  they  must  be — but  better  still,  business  men  with  no 
bias  for  or  against  the  Concern;  such  a  court  only  is  com- 
petent to  meet  the  moral  and  reasonable  demand  of  the 
Christian  Church— that  this  scandal  shall  be  probed  to 
the  bottom  and  the  uttermost  trath  laid  naked  to  the  eyes 
of  men,  as  it  is  in  the  sight  of  Him  Avho  seeth  in  secret. 
Nothing  short  of  this  will  satisfy,  or  ought  to  satisfy,  the 
oppressed  sentiment  of  the  religious   community. 


FOURTH  MEETING  OF  GENERAL  COMMITTEE.         173 

Referring  to  tlie  above  editorial,  the  Christian 
Advocate  charged  the  Observer  with  beiiig  actu- 
ated by  "  bigotry  and  sectarian  prejudice." 

During  tliis  meeting  of  the  Committee,  Rev. 
Bishop  Ames  preached  a  sermon  in  St.  Paul's 
Church,  on  Daniel  in  the  lion's  den,  6th  Chapter. 
He  enlarged  upon  the  conspiracy  of  Daniel's  as- 
sociates, and  the  results.  From  remarks  made 
by  Mr.  Fancher,  as  he  passed  out  of  the  Church, 
it  was  apparent  that  he  Avas  much  interested  in 
the  sermon. 


CONSPIRACY  AGAINST  THE  EPISCOPACY. 

The  failure  of  the  Committee  to  bring  the 
Bishops  into  agreement  with  their  plans  created 
much  bad  feeling  toward  them,  and  immediately 
upon  adjournment  consultations  were  had  pre- 
liminary to  an  attack  upon  the  Episcopal  Office. 
E.  Grant,  who  had  been  lifted  into  significance 
by  the  secret  increase  of  his  salary  from  |2,000 
to  $4,000,  had  declared:  "If  the  Bishops  do  not 
agree  with  the  Committee,  the  next  General  Con- 
ference will  take  from  them  their  power."  About 
this  time  a  letter  appeared  in  an  unofficial 
Church  paper,  giving  "the  secret  history  and 
mystery  of  au  attempt  to  overthrow  the  Episco- 
pal office."  Correspondence  was  had  East  and 
West  as  to  who  should  begin  the  attack,  and  it 
was  agTeed  that  it  should  be  commenced  in  the 
Pittsburgh  Advocate.  Accordingly,  January  the 
25th,  an  editorial  appeared  in  that  paper,  headed 
"Modification  of  the  Episcopacy,"  which  was 
immediately  republished  in  the  Christian  Advo- 
cate, and  referred  to  approvingly  by  the  Western 
Advocate,  thus  showing  that  an  agreement  had 
been  entered  into  to  carry  on  the  attack  all  along 
the  lines  of  the  official  press.  The  following  is 
from  the  Pittsburgh  Advocate: 

Events   and    facts   now    entering    influentially    into    the 
make-up  of  our  history  are  driving  us,  despite  our  strong 
174 


CONSPIRACY  AGAINST   THE   EPISCOPACY.  175 

personal  passion  for  conservatism,  to  the  belief  that  this 
office  in  our  Church  is  needing  serious  modification.  Facts 
now  in  process  of  development  compel  us  to  think  that  a 
periodically  elective  Episcopacy  would  be  preferable  to  a 
life-tenure. 

The  "facts  now  in  course  of  development" 
was  the  refusal  of  the  Bishops  to  be  used  by 
the  combination. 

Next  the  Christian  'Advocate  commenced  a 
series  of  long  editorials  on  "Methodist  Episco- 
pacy." Of  the  office  the  Advocate  said:  "That 
it  has  worked  well  and  produced  valuable  results, 
is  a  good  way  to  justify  the  assumption  that  it 
is  in  an  eminent  sense  the  creature  of  Provi- 
dence. But  whether  it  is  the  purpose  of  Divine 
Providence  to  employ  it  further,  in  its  present 
form,  or  subject  it  to  considerable  changes,  or 
entirely  take  it  away,  are  legitimate  questions." 
Again,  the  Advocate,  referring  to  the  Book  Koom 
trouble,  said:  "The  affair  is  becoming  alarm- 
ing; and  if,  as  we  are  told,  the  Bishops  sustain 
the  course  of  factionists  against  the  regularly 
constituted  Church  authorities,  as  it  is  certain 
that  other  trusted  servants  of  the  Church  do, 
it  is  time  that  it  should  be  known." 

Were  not  the  Bishops  a  part  of  the  regularly 
constituted  Church  authorities?  Or,  were  the 
Book  Committee,  the  official  editors,  the  Book 
Agents  (myself  excepted,  of  course),  Mr.  E.  L. 
Fancher,  and  Kev.  H.  F.  Pease,  "the  regularly 
constituted  Church  authorities?"  The  above  im- 
plies that  they  were  not,  and  had  no  right  to 
exercise  their  own  judgment.    So  offensive  had 


176  CONSPIRACY  AGAINST   THE   EPISCOPACY. 

the  above  "  self-constituted  authorities  "  become 
in  their  zeal  to  damage  me,  and  conceal  the 
frauds,  that  Bishop  Simpson  felt  justified  in  say- 
ing to  one  of  them,  Kev.  S.  H.  Nesbet,  editor  of 
the  Pittsburgh  Advocate,  "  It  is  in  bad  taste  for 
ofiicers  of  the  General  Conference  to  be  meddling 
in  matters  with  which  they  properly  have  noth- 
ing to  do."  The  remark  greiitly  angered  the 
meddlers,  and  when  the  war  on  the  Bishops  was 
commenced,  it  was  quoted  in  the  Pittsburgh 
Advocate.  There  was  method  in  all  this  mad- 
ness! 

Again,  July  13th,  the  Advocate  said:  "The 
Episcopal  Oflfice  is  beset  about  with  many  deli- 
cate relations  and  duties,  and  that  fact  imposes 
upon  its  incumbents  a  necessity  for  great  circum- 
spection and  careful  avoidance  of  all  occasions 
of  offense.  The  experience  of  the  last  few  days 
has  shown  the  undesirableness  of  the  connection 
of  the  Bishops  with  the  care  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern." "Avoidance  of  all  offense"  against 
whom?  It  was  not  difficult  to  understand  these 
hints,  which  were  really  threats. 

Next  the  Western  Advocate  took  up  the  sub- 
ject, and  Januaiy  25th,  said: 

Among  the  modifications  suggested,  is  tlie  limitation  of 
the  term  of  Episcopal  service.  Tliis  point  is  being  agitated 
quietly,  but  pretty  generally  throughout  the  Church.  We 
mistake  the  signs  of  the  times  if  the  quadrennial  election 
of  Bishops  be  not  one  of  the  stirring  questions  of  the  next 
General  Conference.  It  has  long  been  felt  that  the  life- 
tenure  of  this  office  was  an  exceptional  thing  in  our  econ- 
omy, and  such  a  one  as  could  not  be  defended  in  harmony 
with  the  universally  prevalent  ideas  of  Methodism  in  re- 


CONSPIRACY   AGAINST   THE   EPISCOPACY.  177 

gaid  to  orders.  We  have  always  acknowledged  a  discrep- 
ancy between  the  teaching  and  pi'actice  of  the  Church  at 
this  point,  and  if  the  Methodist  theory  is  ever  to  be  made 
practical,  there  will  probably  never  come  a  more  favorable 
time  for  the  change  than  now.  We  may  hereafter  have 
something  to  say  on  the  constitutional  aspects  of  this  ques- 
tion. 

Again  the  Western,  of  April  5th,  said: 

The  discussion  which  has  sprung  up  in  the  Church  in 
relation  to  the  Episcopal  Office  is  taking  a  wide  range — 
ministers  and  laymen  take  hold  of  it  with  a  will,  showing 
that  there  has  been  a  deep  feeling  in  restraint  for  a  long 
time,  which  reveals  itself,  not  in  passionate  outbursts,  but 
in  thoughtful  anxiety  for  the  welfare  of  the  cause  of  Christ 
and  the  efficiency  of  Methodism. 

We  never  liked  the  life-tenure  of  the  office,  because  it 
seemed  exceptional  in  our  economy,  and  placed  us  in  an 
awkward  attitude  before  the  Churches  on  the  subject  of 
orders.  There  is  also  a  possibility  of  bringing  upon  the 
Church  a  heavy  burden,  and  of  creating  a  caste  in  the  minis- 
try that  ought  not  to  exist.  To  us  it  is  plain  that  a  pro- 
vision for  superannuating  the  Bishops  in  the  Annual  Con- 
ference, just  as  other  disabled  men  are  superannuated,  will 
afford  the  Church  relief. 


*  Rev.  S.  H.  Nesbit  was  editor  of  the  Pittsburg  Christian 
Advocate. 

Rev.  Daniel  Curry  was  editor  of  the  New  York  Christian 
Advocate. 

Rev.  S.  M.  Merrill,  (now  Bishop)  wa»  editor  of  the  Western 
Christian  Advocate,  at  Cincinnati.  He  is  deemed  the  most 
logical  mind  in  the  Episcopal  Board.  It  would  be  interesting 
to  know  if  he  retains  the  same  views  on  the  life  tenure  at 
present. 


THE  BISHOP   SCOTT  SUB-COMMITTEE. 

The  Sub-committee  of  which  Bishop  Scott  was 
Chairman,  was  composed  of  Rev.  I.  S.  Bingham, 
and  J.  Rothweiler  of  the  majority,  and  Rev.  L. 
M.  Vernon  of  the  minority,  with  Mr.  E.  L.  Fan- 
cher  and  Judge  Reynolds  to  decide  all  questions 
of  law  and  the  selection  of  accountants.  Soon 
after  the  general  Committee  adjourned,  it  began 
to  be  made  apparent  that  this  elaborately  consti- 
tuted commission  was  a  carefully  devised  plan 
to  get  rid  of  the  investigation  of  the  charges 
upon  which  I  had  been  suspended,  the  investiga- 
tion of  which  would  have  demonstrated  the 
truth  of  my  allegations. 

Before  the  Sub-committee  met,  the  Christian 
Advocate,  whose  utterances  from  the  beginning 
had  been  a  law  unto  the  Committee,  made  the 
following  announcement : 

It  is  not  true  that  the  investigation  of  tlie  frauds  in  the 
establishment  was  referred  to  the  Sub-Committee.  On  tlie 
contrary,  the  Book  Committee  officially  decided,  after  a 
long  and  thorough  investigation,  that  there  were  bo  frauds, 
as  alleged,  to  be  investigated;  and  precisely  what  that 
Committee  referred  to  the  Sub-Committee  was  "  all  ques- 
tions of  business  arrangements  and  methods  in  the  Book 
Concern,"  with  power  to  call  to  their  aid  such  accountants 
as  they  might  deem  necessary. 

And  the  Western  Advocate  of  April  12th,  said: 

The    Sub-Committee    was   not    appointed    to    investigate 
178 


THE    BISHOP    SCOTT    SUBCOMMITTEE.  179 

frauds  in  the  Book  Concern,  as  the  Book  Committee  long 
ago  decided  unanimously  that  there  had  been  no  frauds. 

"Decided  nnanimously!"  Had  the  editor  of 
the  Western  forgotten  what  a  minority  had  said 
in  their  published  report,  and  that  February  23d, 
1870,  in  an  editorial  headed,  "Export  of  the 
Book  Committee,"  he  said:  "On  the  question 
concerning  the  conduct  of  employees  of  the  Bind- 
ery, four  were  of  the  opinion  that  all  was  not 
right.  Three  of  them  signed  a  minority  report 
which  sets  forth  in  full  their  views  of  the  mat- 
ter." 

According  to  the  above,  the  charges  which  I 
still  adhered  to,  and  the  examination  promised, 
related  only  to  "questions  of  business  arrange- 
ments and  methods."  Referring  to  these  re- 
markable statements.  Judge  Reynolds,  in  a  pub- 
lished letter,  said:  "It  leaves  the  Committee  in 
the  sad  plight  of  having  torn  out  the  vitals  of 
the  whole  investigation,  and  then  called  one  of 
the  Bishops  of  the  Church  and  three  of  their 
own  members  to  convene  in  Kew  York  from  dis- 
tant points,  all  for  the  purpose,  not  of  satisfying 
the  Church  as  to  the  truth  of  the  charges,  but 
simply  Hhe  forms  of  business'  under  an  admin- 
istration now  near  its  end.  The  public  will  not 
justify  all  this  expenditure  of  time  and  money 
for  any  such  puerile  object  as  this." 

In  the  same  published  letter.  Judge  Reynolds 
said:  "  The  only  law  question  propounded  to  Mr. 
Fancher  and  myself  was  whether,  in  the  inves- 
tigation, the  Book  Committee  had  a  right  to  go 


180  THE    BISHOP    SCOTT    SUBCOMMITTEE. 

back  of  1868,  the  time  of  tlieir  appointment. 
This  was  answered  in  the  affirmative  by  myself — 
I  have  never  heard  how  by  Mr.  Fancher;  but  the 
raising  of  the  question  by  those  representing  the 
majority  of  the  Book  Committee  was  quite  sig- 
nificant." 

That  remarkable  question  had  also  been  previ- 
ously raised  by  some  of  the  majority  in  the  Gen- 
eral Committee.  Dr.  Carlton's  contention  was 
that  they  had  no  right  to  go  back  of  the  time 
of  their  appointment. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  Bishop  Scott  Com- 
mittee, Judge  Keynolds  proposed  that  each  side 
should  name  an  equal  number  of  accountants, 
leaving  the  Committee  to  select  one  from  each 
list,  and  that  the  Committee  should  appoint  a 
chief  accountant  to  superintend  the  work.  To 
this  no  response  was  given  by  Mr.  Fancher.  In 
the  absence  of  Judge  Keynolds,  the  Sub-commit- 
tee unanimously  selected  three  accountants,  of 
whom  Mr.  J.  Van  Vleck  was  one,  and  submitted 
their  names  to  Messrs.  Fancher  and  Reynolds. 
Mr.  Fancher  objected  to  approving  them  "by 
the  bulk."  Judge  Eeynolds  gave  his  approval 
in  writing  provided  all  three  were  confirmed. 
Mr.  Fancher  was  especially  anxious  to  have  Mr. 
J.  Van  Vleck  appointed  chief  accountant,  he  to 
select  his  assistants.  What  other  two  Mr.  Fan- 
cher favored  was  not  made  known.  Judge  Rey- 
nolds objected  to  Mr.  Van  Vleck's  selecting  the 
other  two,  on  the  ground  that  several  years  be- 
fore he  had  professed  to  have  examined  the  books. 


THE    BISHOP    SCOTT    SUB-COMMITTEE.  181 

and  reported  that  they  were  all  right.  Such  was 
the  persistent  anxiety  to  have  Mr.  Van  Vleck 
appointed  "  Chief  Accountant,  he  to  select  assis- 
tants," that  E.  Grant,  book-keeper,  had  the  inso- 
lence to  write  a  letter  to  Bishop  Simpson,  at  his 
home  in  Philadelphia,  stating  that  there  were 
"many  awkward  entries  in  the  books  which 
would  speak  badly  for  the  house  unless  charit- 
ably dealt  with,"  and  urged  him  to  use  his  influ- 
ence to  have  Mr.  Van  Vleck  appointed.  The 
Bishop  promptly  sent  the  letter  to  the  Sub-com- 
mittee, enclosed  in  one  from  himself,  expressing 
his  estimate  of  Grant's  impertinence.  It  must 
have  been  known  that  Mr.  Van  Vleck  would 
"deal  charitably"  with  the  "awkward  entries!" 
The  Sub-committee,  after  a  session  of  six  days, 
unable  to  agree,  adjourned  to  meet  March  29th. 
At  that  meeting  the  name  of  Mr.  J.  P.  Kilbreth, 
of  Cincinnati  (a  former  book-keeper  in  the  West- 
ern Book  Concern,  the  twin  brother  of  that  in 
New  York,  whose  agents  were  in  thorough  sym- 
pathy with  Dr.  Carlton  and  his  management), 
was  before  the  Committee,  but  he  was  not  chosen. 
Judge  Eeynolds  was  willing  to  accept  even  him, 
provided  others  were  chosen  by  the  Committee, 
who  had  not  been  connected  with  either  of  the 
Concerns.  Unable  to  agree,  the  Sub-committee 
adjourned  sine  die.  The  above  facts  show  that 
Judge  Keyiiolds  approved  three  accountants 
unanimously  chosen  by  the  Committee  in  his 
absence,  but  Mr.  Fancher  was  opposed  to  select- 
ing any  "by  the  bulk." 


182  THE    BISHOP    SCOTT    SUB-COMMITTEE. 

If  there  was  notMng  wrong  in  the  books,  why 
was  Mr.  Fancher,  who  represented  a  majority  of 
the  Book  Committee  and  Dr.  Carlton,  so  hard  to 
please  in  the  selection  of  accountants?  He  was 
evidently  acting  under  instructions.  'No  account- 
ants could  show  fraud  in  the  accounts  if  it  did  not 
exist,  and  if  they  did  show  it,  their  false  showing 
could  easily  have  been  exposed  by  the  party 
responsible  for  the  accounts.  Dr.  Carlton  knew, 
however,  of  the  failure  of  the  Committee  to  agree 
before  it  occurred,  and  had  arranged  with  three 
accountants  whose  appointment  he  immediately 
announced  in  the  following  card: 


DE.  CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS. 

Methodist  Book  Concern, 
New  York,  April  4th,  1871. 

Messrs.  Van  VIeck,  Callender  and  Gunn: 

Gentlemen.— As  you  have  consented,  in  accordance  with 
my  request,  to  examine  the  accounts  and  business  methods 
of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  I  desire  to  say: 

1.  I  wish  the  examination  to  be  thorough  and  complete, 
and  to  cover  the  entire  period  of  my  agency  from  1852  to 
the  present  time,  or  as  much  of  that  period  as  in  your 
judgment  is  important  and  necessary  to  satisfy  yourselves 
of  the  facts  in  the  case. 

2.  I  wish  you,  first  of  all,  to  examine  the  cash  accounts 
to  ascertain  what  disposition  has  been  made  of  the  moneys 
received  and  whether  all  disbursements  have  been  in  the 
legitimate  business  of  the  house  only. 

3.  I  also  wish  you  to  examine  the  general  accounts  and 
books  of  the  house,  to  ascertain  whether  any  fraudulent  or 
corrapt  acts  or  practices  have  obtained  in  the  administra- 
tion of  the  affairs  of  the  Book  Concern. 

4.  I  wish  you  further  to  examine  the  business  methods 
and  arrangements  of  the  house,  to  ascertain  if,  in  your 
judgment,  any  change  is  necessary  to  secure  the  safe  ad- 
ministration of  its  affairs. 

5.  To  afford  you  every  possible  facility  for  carrying  for- 
ward these  examinations,  the  books,  accounts,  and  vouchers 
of  the  house  are  hereby  placed  at  your  disposal,  and  you 
are  authorized  to  make  inquiry  of  the  Agent,  of  the  Assis- 
tant Agent,  of  the  Cashier,  of  the  Principal  Book-keeper, 
of  the  Assistant  Book-keeper,  and  of  any  and  all  other  per- 
sons in  the  employ  of  the  Book  Concern. 

G.  When  you  have  completed  your  examination,  I  desire 
you  to  report  the  result  to  me  in  such  form  as  may  suit 
your  convenience.  Respectfully, 

THOMAS  CARLTON. 
183 


184  DR.   CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS. 

Better  instructions  could  not  have  been  given, 
with  one  important  exception — the  accountants 
were  to  report  the  result  to  liimself !  There  was, 
however,  a  redeeming  provision — "in  such  form 
as  may  suit  your  convenience."  It  will  be  seen 
tliat  from  circumstances  which  subsequently 
transpired,  it  suited  the  "  convenience,"  honesty, 
and  self -protection  of  the  accomplished  and  ven- 
erable expert,  Mr.  John  A.  Gunn,  in  view  of  the 
great  frauds  he  found  in  the  account  books,  to 
"report  the  result"  of  his  examination  in  a 
printed  "form,"  which  prevented  it  going  into 
the  hands  of  Dr.  Carlton's  especial  favorite,  Mr. 
J.  Van  Yleck,  to  be  "fixed"  to  suit  the  emerg- 
ency. 

Immediately  upon  the  announcement  of  the 
above  named  accountants,  I  proposed  to  Dr.  Carl- 
ton that  he  retain  any  two  of  the  three,  and  that 
I  name  a  third,  to  act  with  them,  and  thus  make 
the  examination  mutual.  Receiving  no  answer, 
I  renewed  the  proposition  in  writing  and  received 
the  following: 

Methodist  Book  Concern, 

New  York,  April  8,  1871. 
Rev.  J.  Lanahan,  D.  D. : 

Dear  Brotlier.— I  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  reply  in 
writing  to  your  note  of  the  evening  of  the  5th  inst.,  inas- 
much as  I  stated  to  you  personally  at  the  time  of  its  receipt 
my  views  of  its  contents;  but  having  seen  a  communication 
in  the  New  York  Times  of  to-day  from  your  attorney, 
Judge  Reynolds,  saying  you  had  made  certain  propositions 
to  me  in  writing  to  which  I  had  not  replied,  I  will  now 
reply  in  writing. 

I  stated  to  j'ou  that  I  had  completed  an  arrangement 
with  three  accountants  to  make  a  thorough  and  full  exam- 


DR.  CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS.  185 

ination  of  the  books  and  accounts,  and  also  of  the  business 
methods  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  I  could  not  now  con- 
sistently change  these  arrangements.  Had  your  letter  been 
handed  to  me  when  the  proposal  in  it  could  have  been 
made  available,  it  would  have  been  most  cheerfully  ac- 
cepted. When  Judge  Fancher  said  to  me,  while  the  Sub- 
committee was  here  the  last  time,  "  Suppose  the  committee 
select  a  chief  accountant,  and  each  of  the  Agents  an  assis- 
tant," I  unhesitatingly  replied,  I  will  consent  to  such 
arrangements;  the  Judge  immediately  left,  saying,  "  I  will 
make  the  proposition  to  Bishop  Scott."  But  now,  after  the 
said  committee  has  adjourned  sine  die,  and  I  have  entered 
into  other  engagements,  it  is  too  late.  But  I  will  now  say, 
in  order  to  secure  to  you  whatever  benefit  your  proposed 
arrangement  would  afford  if  adopted,  you  shall  be  at  full 
liberty,  and  are  hereby  requested,  to  lay  before  the  account- 
ants the  result  of  your  examinations  made  heretofore  into 
the  affairs  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  any  other  matters 
pertinent  on  the  subject  you  may  desire  to  submit  in  per- 
son or  through  the  experts  by  whom  your  examinations 
have  been  conducted,  or  both,  as  to  you  may  seem  most 
expedient;  and  I  will  request  the  said  accountants  to  give 
due  consideration  to  whatever  you  or  those  experts  may 
offer  in  the  premises.  Yours  truly, 

THOMAS  CARLTON. 

I  then  made  tlie  following  proposition  which 
I  reasonably  hoped  would  be  "most  cheerfully 
accepted:" 

New  York,  April  8,  1871. 
Dr.  Carlton: 

I  regret  to  find  in  yours  of  this  date  a  refusal  to  agree 
to  what  was  substantially  your  own  proposition,  namely, 
that  you  name  the  chief  accountant  and  an  assistant,  and 
I  name  one  assistant.  You  state  as  your  reason  that  you 
have  "  completed  arrangements  with  three  accountants  to 
make  an  examination."  Such  is  my  desire  for  a  speedy 
and  mutual  adjustment  of  these  matters,  I  now  propose 
that  you  retain  the  three  whom  you  may  have  engaged, 
and  I  employ  one  to  act  with  them  in  the  examination. 
But  for  the  gravity  of  the  matters  involved,  I  might  think 


186  DE.   CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS. 

you  jesting  when  you  propose  in  lieu  of  my  naming  one 
of  the  examiners,  that  I  lay  before  those  chosen  exclusively 
by  yourself  the  result  of  my  previous  examinations. 

Yours  truly,  JOHN  LANAHAN. 

The  above  proposition  was  also  rejected. 

When  the  above  card  by  Dr.  Carlton  was  pub- 
lished, Mr.  Gunn,  employed  by  Dr.  Carlton,  had 
been  at  work  on  the  books  since  the  preced- 
ing January —about  three  months.  Subsequent 
events  show  that  the  special  object  of  the  an- 
nouncement of  the  names  of  Messrs.  Van  Vleck 
and  Callender  was  to  get  the  former  connected 
witli  the  examination. 

The  Christian  Advocate  stated  that  Mr.  Van 
Vleck  was  a  Methodist,  Mr.  Callender  a  Baptist, 
and  that  he  was  selected  because  of  "  his  ability 
and  high  official  position  as  United  States  Bank 
examiner,"  and  one  high  in  official  position  in 
the  Church  said  to  me  that  his  official  position 
would  have  great  weight  and  influence.  I  replied, 
that  official  position,  though  it  were  that  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  could  not 
outweigh  facts  founded  on  truth;  that  I  possess- 
ed the  facts  and  had  no  concern  about  names 
or  official  position;  all  I  desired  was  an  honest 
examination. 

Of  Mr.  Gunn,  the  Advocate  said: 

He  is  a  Presbyterian.  For  twenty-five  years  he  was  a 
book-keeper,  but  for  the  last  fifteen  years  has  been  em- 
ployed by  leading  business  houses  in  this  city  as  an  expert 
in  making  similar  examinations  to  those  in  which  he  is 
now  engaged.  Dr.  Carlton  had  never  met  him  until  a  few 
weeks  ago,  when,  desiring  to  secure  an  able  and  impartial 


DR.  CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS.  187 

expert  to  test  the  correctness  of  the  Book  Room  accounts 
(which  were  in  private  circles  charged  with  error),  he  was 
recommended  to  him  by  several  of  the  best  business  men 
of  the  city.  His  services  were  soon  after  secured,  and  he 
has  since  that  time  been  engaged  in  examining  the  accounts. 
Probably  no  abler  or  more  suitable  experts  could  be  found 
in  the  whole  countiy.  Their  conclusions  will  be  accepted 
by  the  business  public,  and  also,  we  believe,  by  the  great 
body  of  our  people  and  the  Christian  community  generally. 

I  ask  especial  attention  to  tlie  above  endorse- 
ment of  Mr.  Gnnn,  as  I  shall  furnish  from  his 
report  the  most  conclusive  evidence  of  long  con- 
tinued mismanagement  and  fraud  in  the  account 
books,  and  in  the  financial  exhibits  to  the  An- 
nual and  General  Conferences. 

Thus,  it  will  be  seen,  that  I  accepted  the  "  con- 
clusions "  of  Dr.  Carlton's  expert  accountant — the 
only  one  of  the  three  that  examined — and  I  doubt 
not  this  conclusion  will  be  accepted  with  amaze- 
ment and  horror  by  "the  business  public,  and 
also  by  the  great  body  of  our  people." 

Mr.  Van  Vleck  had  not  yet  appeared  at  the 
Book  Kooms.  Mr.  CaUender  never  appeared 
there.  His  name  was  used  for  effect.  Mr.  Gunn 
alone  continued  to  examine,  and  his  examination 
extended  uninterruptedly  through  about  fifteen 
months.  I  was  informed  that  his  compensation 
was  1375.00  per  month.  Subsequently  Mr.  Tan 
Vleck  called  there  in  an  apparently  casual  way 
every  few  weeks  until  he  supposed  Mr.  Gunn 
was  nearing  the  close  of  his  examination,  when 
his  visits  became  more  frequent,  but  he  never 
looked  at  the  books.  It  finally  appeared,  how- 
ever, that  his  visits  had  a  deep  meaning. 


188  DR.   CAHLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS. 

About  December  14, 1871,  Mr.  Van  Yleck  came 
to  the  Book  Concern,  and  I  heard  him  and  Dr. 
Carlton  urging  Mr.  Gunn  to  give  him  the  result 
of  his  examination  so  that  he  could  write  the 
report  for  the  Book  Committee.  Mr.  Gunn  re- 
plied that  he  alone  had  examined  and  must 
make  his  own  report.  Dr.  Carlton  and  Van 
Vleck  stated  that  it  was  often  the  case  that  a 
Committee  was  appointed  to  examine  accounts 
and  that,  although  only  one  examined,  all  signed 
the  report.  Mr.  Gunn  answered,  that  he  would 
not  be  a  party  to  such  transaction,  and  added, 
"Dr.  Lanahan  knows  that  Mr.  Van  A^eck  has 
not  examined  and  will  so  state,  and  thus  invali- 
date the  report."  Mr.  Gunn  also  reminded  Dr. 
Carlton  that  he  had  notified  him,  Avhen  the  above 
card  was  published,  that  he  would  not  act  as  one 
of  a  Committee  if  he  alone  was  to  examine,  and 
again  refused  to  give  Mr.  Van  Vleck  the  papers 
containing  the  result  of  his  examination.  The 
interview  was  earnest  and  extended.  Immedi- 
ately after  it  ended,  Mr.  Gimn  handed  me  the 
following  note: 

Dr.  Lanahan,  if  you  heard  the  conversation  between 
Dr.  Carlton,  Mr.  Van  Vleck  and  myself — I  suppose  you  did, 
your  window  being  down — please  record  it;  more  at  another 
time.  J.  A.  G. 

I  answered,  "I  have  recorded  it."  This  was 
the  first  interchange  between  Mr.  Gunn  and  my- 
self. His  examination  was  made  in  a  small  room 
connected  with  our  ofl&ce  by  a  door  and  window; 
my  desk  was  by  the  door  and  under  the  window, 


DR.  CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS.  189 

wMch  was  down  from  the  top — ^thus  I  heard  the 
conversation. 

I  now  felt  free  to  call  on  Mr.  Gunn,  to  hear 
what  he  desired  to  communicate.  He  said, 
"I  wish  to  inform  you  how  I  came  to  be  em- 
ployed by  Dr.  Carlton.  A  friend  requested  me 
to  call  on  Mr.  Van  Vleck,  who  wanted  some 
accounting  done.  I  called,  and  he  referred  me 
to  Dr.  Carlton,  giving  me  a  note  of  introduction. 
Dr.  Carlton  said  he  wanted  me  to  examine  the 
accounts  of  the  Book  Concern.  I  told  him  I 
would  do  so,  but  not  in  the  interests  of  any 
one  party.  We  agTeed  upon  terms,  and  I  en- 
tered upon  the  examination  in  January  (1871), 
when  you  were  being  tried  by  the  Book  Com- 
mittee. After  your  trial  ended  and  the  Sub- 
committee, of  which  Bishop  Scott  was  Chairman, 
was  appointed  to  select  accountants,  I  received 
a  note  from  Mr.  Van  Vleck,  requesting  me  to  call 
on  him.  I  called,  and  he  said  he  expected  to  be 
appointed  chairman  of  a  committee  to  examine 
the  accounts  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  should 
desire  me  to  assist  him  and  give  him  the  result 
of  my  examination  so  that  he  could  write  the 
report  for  the  Book  Committee.  I  told  him  that 
if  I  continued  the  examination,  I  would  write 
my  own  report.  After  further  conversation  I 
left  him,  supposing  I  was  understood."  The 
above  explains  the  anxiety  of  Mr.  Fancher  to 
have  Mr.  Van  Vleck  appointed  chief  accountant. 

Mr.  Gunn  further  stated  that  when  Dr.  Ckrl- 
ton  published  the  card  announcing  the  appoint- 


190  DK.   CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS. 

meiit  of  Messrs.  Van  Vleck,  Calleiider,  and  him- 
self, lie  told  liini  he  would  not  serve  on  such  a 
committee,  if  he  alone  examined,  and  that  Dr. 
Carlton  assured  him  that  their  relation  to  the 
examination  would  be  only  nominal.  At  a 
subsequent  interview,  he  said,  "My  work  is 
purely  professional — I  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  controversy,  and  shall  report  what  I  have 
found  in  the  books."  He  did  not  tell  me  what 
his  report  would  be,  nor  did  I  care  to  know,  as 
the  result  of  my  examination  and  that  of  my 
accountant  had  furnished  facts  sufficient  to 
meet  any  issue  that  might  be  raised. 

He  then  said  that  he  desired  to  communicate 
with  some  influential  layman  to  whom  he  could 
make  known  the  result  of  his  examination,  and 
named  ex-Mayor  Havemyer,  who  attended  Sev- 
enth Avenue  Church,  of  which  Dr.  Andrew 
Longacre  was  pastor,  and  which  church  Mr. 
Gunn  attended  during  his  examination,  it  be- 
ing near  his  boarding  house.  I  suggested  that 
he  make  his  communication  to  Eev.  Bishop 
Janes.  He  adopted  the  suggestion  and  called 
on  the  Bishop,  who  designated  a  day  in  the  next 
week  when  he  would  have  Bishop  Simpson  pres- 
ent. On  the  appointed  day,  Mr.  Gmm  met  the 
two  Bishops,  at  Bishop  Janes'  residence,  gave 
them  a  statement  of  the  results  of  his  ex- 
amination, and  expressed  the  opinion  that  Dr. 
Carlton  would  not  present  the  report  he  in 
truth  should  be  compelled  to  make.  He  also 
informed  them  of  repeated  efforts  of  Dr.  Carl- 


DR.  CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS.  191 

ton  and  Mr.  Van  Vleck  to  get  him  to  give  the 
latter  the  result  of  his  examination  so  that 
he  could  write  the  report  for  the  Book  Commit- 
tee to  present  to  the  General  Conference.  The 
result  of  the  interview  was  that  the  Bishops 
advised  Mr.  Gunn  so  to  take  care  of  the  result 
of  his  examination  as  to  get  his  report  before 
the  General  Conference.  To  make  sure  of  this, 
Mr.  Gunn  then  determined  to  deliver  it  to  Dr. 
Carlton  in  a  printed  "form,"  which  prevented 
it  going  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Van  Vleck  in 
manuscript. 

Failing  in  their  plans  to  make  Mr.  Gmm  their 
willing  tool,  after  he  had  been  at  work  on  the 
books  several  months,  Mr.  J.  P.  Kilbreth,  a  for- 
mer book-keeper  in  the  Western  Book  Concern, 
was  brought  from  Cincinnati,  Ohio.  He  could 
be  trusted  before  he  came!  In  his  report  to  the 
Book  Committee,  which  they  presented  to  the 
General  Conference  with  much  praise,  he  quotes 
resolutions  of  the  Committee  by  which  he  was 
appointed.  When  I  examined  the  records  of 
the  Committee  there  were  no  such  resolutions 
in  them.  But  it  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence,  as 
the  Committee  and  Dr.  Carlton  were  one.  The 
idea  of  the  Committee — after  all  their  tergiver- 
sations— appointing  an  examiner,  needs  no  com- 
ment. To  me  Mr.  Kilbreth  was  more  amusing 
than  otherwise.  He  moved  about  the  building 
as  one  having  authority,  and  called  himself  a 
"  referee."  He  had  perhaps  been  made  to  believe 
that  he  was  one,  as  the  Book  Committee  in  their 


192  DR.  CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS. 

report  to  the  General  Conference  subsequently 
dignified  him  with  that  title,  hut  took  great  care 
not  to  name  any  parties  who  had  chosen  him. 
Would  any  self-respecting  man  allow  himself  to 
be  called  a  referee  without  being  furnished  with 
evidence  that  the  parties  in  dispute  had  chosen 
him? 

Mr.  Kilbreth  requested  me  to  lay  before  him 
my  charges.  Although  I  was  confident  he  was 
employed  by  Dr.  Carlton,  I  assented,  stating  that 
I  would  employ  an  accountant  of  my  own  choos- 
ing to  assist  him.  To  this  he  assented,  but  the 
next  day  withdrew  his  assent.  He  had  no  doubt 
received  instructions.  He  applied  to  me  for  the 
records  of  the  Book  Committee  which  I  had  been 
examining  and  copying.  By  mistake  in  deliver- 
ing them,  I  gave  him  a  printed  paper  prepared 
by  my  accountants,  Messrs.  E.  H.  Gouge  and 
0.  A.  Appel,  which  I  had  not  used,  and  requested 
its  return,  which  he  promised.  The  next  day  he 
refused.  He  had  no  doubt  been  instructed 
again.  I  then  told  him  that  any  further  com- 
munication between  us  must  be  in  writing.  In 
his  report,  after  acknowledging  that  I  refused 
to  have  anytliing  to  do  with  his  examination 
unless  represented  by  an  accountant  of  my  own 
choosing,  on  page  42  he  says :  "  Dr.  Lanahan,  at 
the  time,  however,  did  hand  me  a  printed  report 
made  by  Mr.  E.  H.  Gouge  and  C.  A.  Appel, 
professional  accountants,  who  by  him  had  been 
employed  to  inspect  the  book  accounts  of  the 
House.  To  this  report  I  shall  devote  some 
attention." 


DR.  CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS.  193 

Why  did  he  not  honestly  state  how  I  came  to 
"  hand "  him  tlie  "  printed  report  ? "  I  had 
reason,  however,  to  be  pleased  that  he  got  it, 
notwithstanding  his  disreputable  conduct,  be- 
cause in  devoting  "some  attention  to  it,"  he 
furnished  material  for  the  exposure  of  his  at- 
tempted deception,  which  will  be  found  in  my 
citations  from  the  report  of  Mr.  Gunn. 

Of  the  financial  management  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern, Mr.  Kilbreth  makes  the  following  strong 
statement,  page  44:  "As  to  the  financial  depart- 
ment, I  regard  its  management  as  above  re- 
proach, and  it  is  difficult  for  me  to  see  how  it 
could  be  improved."  And  again,  on  page  64, 
he  spurns  the  idea  of  the  Principal  Agent's  deriv- 
ing pecuniary  benefits  from  his  position,  and 
says,  "  such  a  supposition,  I  am  free  to  say,  has 
not  the  slightest  foundation.  Dr.  Carlton  does 
not,  and  does  not  need  to  seek  benefits  from  the 
funds  of  the  Book  Concern."  I  find  it  difficult 
to  restrain  the  expression  of  my  disgust  and 
abhorrence  of  such  statements  from  a  man  whom 
I  must  show  to  have  been  absolutely  ignorant  of 
the  matter  about  which  he  was  using  such  un- 
qualified language.  If  he  was  not  absolutely 
ignorant,  what  then?  I  beg  the  reader  to  keep 
in  mind  the  above. 

Mr.  Kilbreth's  report  closes  with  these  words 
to  the  Book  Committee:  "  I  request  you  to  order 
an  appropriation,  not  exceeding  |1,100,  to  cover 
my  actual  expenses,  including  a  small  sum  for 
clerical  assistance.    The  items  will  be  furnished 


194  DR.  CARLTON'S  ACCOUNTANTS. 

at  the  time  of  payment.  For  my  services  I  de- 
cline compensation."  He  received  fl,192.25. 
Perliaps  tlie  additional  |92.25  was  received  for 
"services"  rendered  in  making  the  Committee 
of  the  General  Conference  believe  that  the 
management  of  the  financial  department  was 
"above  reproach."  His  "assistance"  was  from 
E.  Grant,  Dr.  Carlton,  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher,  and  J. 
Van  Vleck,  whom  he  consulted  elsewhere  than 
at  the  Book  Concern. 


KEPORT  OF  MR.  JOHN  A.  GUNN. 

I  now  ask  attention  to  a  few  quotations  from 
the  report  of  Mr.  John  A.  Gunn,  who  was  endors- 
ed by  the  Christian  Advocate  as  "an  able  and 
impartial  expert,"  "  recommended  by  some  of  the 
best  business  houses  in  this  City,  as  an  expert  in 
making  examinations  similar  to  those  in  which 
he  is  now  engaged,"  and  who  spent  about  fifteen 
months  in  a  thorough  examination  of  the  books 
of  the  Concern.  As  already  shown,  he  was  se- 
lected by  Dr.  Carlton,  and  it  hence  would  be 
natural  to  suppose  that  the  results  reached  by 
him  would  be  as  favorable  to  the  Senior  Agent 
as  the  facts  would  allow.  Any  one  examining 
his  report  will  be  convinced  of  the  accuracy  and 
care  with  which  his  work  was  done,  and  of  the 
studied  moderation  with  which  his  conclusions 
are  stated.  I  cite  only  a  few  of  these  which, 
though  they  can  but  be  at  disadvantage,  being 
isolated  from  their  connection,  are  yet  so  obvi- 
ously conclusive  of  wrong  intent  as  to  convince 
even  the  most  prejudiced  and  unbelieving. 

This  able  accountant  analyzes  the  business  of 
the  Concern  for  a  period  of  nineteen  years — from 
1852  (the  year  of  Dr.  Carlton's  first  election),  to 
1871 — showing  the  yearly  amount  and  increase 
of  the  capital  stock  as  represented  in  the  ledger, 

195 


196  REPORT  OF  J.    A.    GUNN. 

and  in  the  exhibits  to  the  Annual  Conferences, 
and  reveals  discrepancies  of  such  amount  and 
kind  as  could  only  be  possible  to  business  meth- 
ods of  the  mosit  reprehensible  and  iniquitous 
character.  That  these  methods  were  meant  to 
shield,  and  did  shield  transactions  whose  crimi- 
nality needed  concealment,  is  the  only  con- 
clusion to  which  they  point,  and  which  it  is 
impossible  in  truth  to  avoid.  That  the  real 
owner  of  the  property,  the  Church,  should  thus 
be  misled  through  a  long  series  of  years  by  those 
to  whom  its  custody  and  management  had  been 
sacredly  confided,  as  any  reader  must  acknowl- 
edge, is  absolutely  horrible  to  think  of!  And 
this  too,  when  the  wrong-doers  were  receiving 
from  the  Church  extravagant  eulogimns  upon 
their  successful  management  as  being  "  the  right 
men  in  the  right  place." 

It  is  clear  from  the  report  of  this  accomplished 
accountant,  who  deeply  studied  and  traced  out 
aU  the  manipulations,  and  the  false  entries  and 
downright  deceptions  by  which  these  anomalies 
were  produced  that  he  rose  from  his  work  with 
a  profound  impression  of  their  evil  significance. 
His  closing  words  are  these:  "There  can  be 
no  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  serious  import 
of  the  acts  and  practice  herein  stated,  or  the 
results  demonstrated  by  the  accompanj-ing  evi- 
dence." 

It  is  proper  to  add  that  all  the  evidence  show- 
ing mismanagement  and  fraud,  which  constitutes 
two-thirds  of  the  report,  was  left  out  of  the 


REPORT   OP  J.    A.    GUNN.  197 

Journal  of  the  General  Conference  to  which  the 
report  was  presented.  As  an  act  of  simple  justice 
to  say  the  least,  should  not  the  next  General 
Conference  order  the  publication  of  the  entire 
report  in  its  Journal?  If  this  is  done  it  will 
more  than  confirm  every  charge  that  I  ever  made 
against  the  management  of  the  Book  Concern 
as  found  in  books  of  account. 

MR.  GUNN'S  REPORT. 

Rev.  T.  Carlton,  D.  D.,  Agent,  etc.: 

Sir.— Your  letter  of  April  4,  1871,  named  two  other  gentle- 
men with  myself  as  a  Committee  "  to  examine  the  accounts 
and  business  methods  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern."  As, 
however,  I  learned  from  yourself  that  these  gentlemen  were 
not  expected,  and  from  themselves,  that  they  did  not  intend, 
to  personally  participate  in  the  examination,  I  declined  to 
act  as  a  member  of  such  Committee,  and  subsequently,  on 
April  20th,  concluded  an  agreement  with  you  to  individually 
make  the  proposed  investigation.  I  entered  immediately 
upon  an  examination  of  the  accoimts  which  cover  the 
period  from  January  1,  18G0,  to  November  30,  1871,  be- 
lieving that  a  minute  investigation  of  these  accounts,  to- 
gether with  the  vouchers  and  records  pertaining  thereto, 
would  yield  conclusive  evidence  as  to  the  truth  or  falsity 
of  the  charges  of  "  incompetent  book-keeping  "  and  "  fraud  " 
in  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  Concern. 

The  plan  thus  entered  upon  was  pursued  until  the  1st 
of  January  last,  when,  in  accordance  with  jouv  expressed 
wish,  I  suspended  the  consecutive  examination,  and  gave 
my  time  and  attention  to  the  specific  matters  cited  by 
Dr.  Lanahan  in  his  presentment  to  the  Book  Committee,* 
and  in  the  consideration  of  these  I  have  since  that  date 
been  employed;  of  the  results  of  my  examination  thus  far 
I  beg  leave  to  make  the  following 

*My  "  presentment  to  the  Book  Committee"  was  that  the  accounts 
were  chaotic;  entries  in  the  books  fraudulent;  and  exhibits  1o  the 
Annual  Conferences  false.  The  reader  will  see  how  far  these  charges 
are  proven  by  Dr.  Carlton's  own  accountant. 


198  REPORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN. 


REPORT. 


1.  In  reference  to  the  Book-keeping. 

That,  before  entering  upon  an  examination  of  the  accounts 
subsequent  to  January  1st,  18G1,  I  found  it  necessary  to 
consider,  although  not  minutely,  those  of  the  preceding 
years;  that,  when  the  consecutive  work  was  suspended,  it 
had  embraced  the  period  from  1801  to  18G5  inclusive;  and 
that,  in  considering  Dr.  i^anahau's  allegations,  I  have  had 
occasion  to  examine  carefully  much  of  the  work  of  the 
years  from  1866  to  1871  inclusive;  so  that  my  investiga- 
tion, while  minute  only  as  to  the  five  years  indicated,  has, 
in  many  important  respects,  embraced  the  entire  period 
from  January,  1852,  to  November  30,  1871.  It  is  proper 
for  me  to  add,  however,  that  when  the  examination  of  the 
accounts  from  1861  to  1865  was  suspended,  it  was  com- 
plete only  as  to  inaccuracies  and  irregularities  apparent 
upon  the  ledger — not  as  to  the  vouchers  and  original 
records^.  .  .  . 

No,  no,  "  the  vouchers  and  original  records  "  were 
delicate  things  to  handle,  and  the  bank  books 
were  not  to  be  handled  at  all,  except  by  Dr. 
Carlton  and  the  Cashier,  his  brother-in-law.  I 
failed  to  get  access  to  them  through  the  civil 
court  even,  because  Judge  Barnard  turned  his 
hearing  ear  to  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher,  and  the  Shoe 
and  Leather  Bank,  with  whom  he  was  "inti- 
mate." Mr.  Gunn,  was  not  allowed  to  see  them, 
although  Dr.  Carlton's  published  card  announc- 
ing his  appointment,  had  said  "I  wish  you  first 
of  all  to  examine  the  cash  account,  to  ascertain 
what  disposition  has  been  made  of  the  moneys 
received,  and  whether  all  disbursements  have 
been  in  the  legitimate  business  of  the  house 
only."  Well,  an  overruling  Providence  put  in 
my  hands  material  to  show  much  as  to  "the 
disposition  made  of  the  moneys  received." 


REPORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN.  199 

Mr.  Gunn,  1st.  notices  the  "Accuracy  of  tlie 
accounts;"  2d.  "The  System;"  3d.  "The  Appli- 
cation of  the  System;"  4th.  "The  practice."  Of 
the  latter  he  says: 

1.  The  record  of  details  is  obscure  and  meagre. 

The  subsidiary  books  afford  in  most  cases  very  little,  and 
in  many  no  information  whatever  concerning  the  origin 
and  incidental  history  of  important  accounts  and  entries, 
so  that  it  is  simply  impossible  to  understand  such  accounts 
and  entries  without  protracted  and  elaborate  investigation, 
which  frequently  would  need  to  be  supplemented  by  infor- 
mation from  one  personally  familiar  with  such  details.  It 
is  certainly  true  that,  in  case  of  the  absence  of  both  the 
book-keeper  and  his  assistant,  it  would  not  be  possible  for 
one  not  otherwise  advised  to  gather  from  the  books  such 
knowledge  of  the  accounts  before  him  as  would  render 
him  competent  to  make  a  reliable  statement  of  the  real 
condition  of  the  Concern— not  because  of  peculiarities  of 
the  business,  but  only  because  he  would  find  no  i*ecord  of 
facts  which  Avould  elucidate  the  entries  upon  the  ledger.  .  .  . 

2.  Frequent  alterations  and  changes  have  rendered  the 
books  untrustworthy  and  unintelligible,  because  there  is 
no  explanation  of  such  alterations. 

3.  The  correctness  of  the  books  has  been  tested  by  trial 
balances  only  once  a  year;  error  then  disclosed  has  been 
allowed  to  remain  without  discovery,  and  consequently 
the  books  have  not  balanced  in  nearly  twenty  years. 

4.  There  is  a"  singular  lack  of  uniformity  in  the  manner 
of  keeping  some  of  the  accounts,  changes  being  made  so 
frequently,  and  Avithout  explanation  or  notice  upon  the 
books,  that  the  account  is  rendered  unintelligible. 

5.  Many  entries  are  made  in  phraseology  not  known  to 
double  entry,  which  either  obscures  or  fails  to  make  appar- 
ent the  transaction  recorded. 

6.  Accounts  have  been  closed  to  "  Profit  and  Loss  "  with- 
out proper  adjustment,  and  without  intelligible  explanation. 


Absolute  observance  of  the  cardinal  principle  of  double 
entry— equal  debit  and  credit  for  every  transaction— is  essen- 


200  REPORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN. 

tialto  the  integrity  of  tlie  record.  Tliis  can  be  assured 
only  by  the  test  of  the  trial  balance;  and  if  error  then 
disclosed  is  allowed  to  remain  without  discovery,  the  trust- 
worthiness of  the  record  is  destroyed;  for,  although  the 
error  disclosed  be  apparently  small,  there  is  no  certainty 
that  it  is  not  large. 

As  evidence  that  amoimts  have  been  carried  to  profit  and 
loss  without  proper  adjustment  and  without  intelligible  ex- 
planation, I  refer  you  to  the  Depository  accounts,  by  which 
it  appears  that  in  186(1  there  was  placed  to  the  debit  of 
profit  and  loss  upon  only  an  estimate  of  probable  error, 
not  after  the  amount  of  error  had  been  definitely  ascer- 
tained, the  sum  of  $76,528.31,  the  only  explanation  being 
"for  errors  in  Depository  sales";  and  that  in  nearly  every 
successive  year  these  accounts  have  been  closed  "  bj'^  profit 
and  loss  "  for  differences  between  the  books  of  the  Agents 
and  those  of  the  Concern,  not  after,  but  without  adjust- 
ment, and  without  such  explanation  on  the  books  as  would 
enable  one  not  acquainted  with  the  facts  to  see  the  pro- 
priety of  the  entry. 

There  were  no  such  "errors  in  depository- 
sales."  The  "errors"  were  the  result  of  what 
Mr.  Gunn  calls  the  "  manipulations  "  and  "  gerry- 
mandering" of  the  accounts  in  connection  with 
the  long  continued  frauds.  But  notwithstand- 
ing the  above  amount  "  for  correction  of  errors  " 
was  charged  off  as  a  loss  in  1866,  Mr.  Gunn 
shows  that  in  1867,  |54,372.11  was  also  charged 
off  as  "  a  loss  for  correction  of  errors."  Of  it  he 
says : 

In  reference  to  the  process  by  which  this  amount  was 
suppressed,  see  Eeport,  p.  17. 

There  is  no  explanation  of  this  remarkable  transaction 
upon  any  of  the  books  of  the  Concern;  but  the  following 
was  given  in  writing  on  December  27,  1871,  by  the  book- 
keeper, Mr.  E.  Grant,  viz.: 

"  It  was  supposed  that  the  manner  in  which  the  sum  of 


RErORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN.  201 

$23,102.89  had  been  handled  had  improperly  increased  the 
Stock  Account  by  twice  that  amount.  Supposed  errors  were 
also  found  in  the  Depository  Accounts  aggregating  $8,046.33. 

"  To  correct  these  errors,  stock  was  debited  $54,372.11, 
and  a  similar  amount  deducted  from  the  Inventories,  to  pre- 
vent confusion  in  the  Profit  and  Loss  Account." 

To  the  question,  "  What  errors  in  the  Depository  Accounts 
are  referred  to?  "  Mr.  Grant  replied,  verbally,  "  I  made  no 
record— cannot  now  remember;  and  you  will  have  to  take 
my  word  that  it  is  all  right." 

Is  it  not  singular  that  Mr.  Grant's  memory 
failed  liim  upon  tlie  one  vital  point — "what 
errors"?  That  was  the  hinge  upon  which  the 
whole  matter  turned.  It  is  unfortunate  that  he 
"made  no  record"!  Well,  his  "word"  that  it 
was  all  right  was  something,  especially  as  for 
that  and  many  like  words,  and  other  peculiar 
services,  his  salary  had  just  before  been  secretly 
raised  from  |2,000  to  |4,000.  Mr.  Gunn,  as  will 
be  seen,  again  refers  to  this  matter  of  |54,372.11 
when  dealing  with  Mr.  Kilbreth's  report- 
Mr.  Gunn  further  says: 

I  have  seen  a  copy  of  the  "  Report "  which  has  been 
prepared  for  you  to  submit  to  the  approaching  General 
Conference,  and  to  some  matters  therein  it  seems  proper 
for  me  to  direct  your  attention. 

I.  On  page  8  there  is  a  statement  of  "  Sales  and  profits 
for  the  four  years  ending  November  30,  1871."  The  profits 
stated  are  not  profits  on  sales  only,  but  profits  on  the  whole 
business  of  the  Concern  in  all  its  departments;  and  of  these 
only  the  net  profit,  i.  e.,  the  amount  which  remained  after 
the  payment  of  all  losses  and  expenses. 

1.  These  net  profits  on  the  whole  business  are  not  given 
as  they  appear  on  the  ledger. 


202 

REPORT 

OF  J.    A.    GUNN. 

Report. 

Ledger.              Difference. 

More.          Less. 

1868. 

$83,009.03 

$  81,326.89    $1,682.14 

1869. 

60,954.17 

193,223.96                       $132,269.79 

1870. 

68,081.05 

82,683.41                           14,602.36 

1871. 

63,095.92 

104,145.77                           41,049.85 

$275,140.17  Net  p'fit,  $461,380.03  $187,922.00 

1,682.14 
Deduct  amt.  from  "  Miss.  

Society"      of      M.      E.  $186,239.86 

Church  South 35,215.02  35,215.02 


"  Net  earnings  "  $426,165.01  Difference,  $151,024.84 

After  thoroughly  analyzing  the  report,  Mr. 
Gnun  says,  "Difference  between  the  report  and 
the  ledger  |96,857.70."  When  that  report  was 
read  to  the  General  Conference  of  1872,  at  Brook- 
lyn, signed  "Carlton  and  Lanahan,  Agents,"  1 
arose  in  my  place  as  a  member  of  the  body  and 
stated  that  it  was  fraudulently  false,  and  re- 
quested that  my  name  be  taken  from  it.  My 
statement  produced  much  bad  feeling  toward 
me,  and  one  member  openly  denounced  me  as  "  a 
devil,"  and  was  so  reported  in  the  New  York 
papers.  When  called  to  order,  he  replied,  "it  is 
always  appropriate  to/  quote  scripture,"  thus  in- 
dicating the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  reference 
to  Judas  Iscariot — "One  of  you  is  a  devil."  I 
gave  no  attention  to  the  denunciation,  but  per- 
sisted in  the  demand,  which  was  finally  granted 
by  a  resolution,  but  when  the  report  appeared 
in  the  General  Conference  Journal,  it  was  signed 
"  Carlton  and  Lanahan,  Agents,"  and  so  it  stands 


BErORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN.  203 

now,  and  will  stand.  Thus  I  am  made  respon- 
sible for  the  false  report. 

Mr.  Gunn  next  gives  attention  to  Kilbreth's 
report. 

The  reader  will  please  observe  how!  frequently 
the  154,372.11  turns  up  in  this  part  of  Mr.  Gunn's 
reference  to  Mr.  Kilbreth's  report.     He  says: 

In  Mr.  Kilbreth's  Report  to  the  Book  Committee  there 
are  also  some  matters  to  which  it  is  proper  for  me  to  advert. 

"  I  have  personally  examined  the  methods  of  book-keep- 
ing in  use  in  the  Book  Concern,  and  the  condition  of  its 
business  as  therein  set  forth.  My  conclusion  is  that  the 
business  is  not  in  a  confused  or  chaotic,  but  in  a  decidedly 
understandable  shape,  and  that  it  is  not  difficult  to  learn 
the  true  state  of  affairs  from  the  books."    Page  44. 

As  I  have,  in  my  Report,  expressed  conclusions  diametric- 
ally opposite  to  those  stated  in  the  above  extract,  it  is 
proper  for  me  to  say  that  Mr.  Kilbreth,  surely,  can  not 
intend  it  to  be  understood  that  he  has  "  personally  ex- 
amined "  the  accounts  in  the  ledger,  which  I  have  had  in 
daily  and  constant  use  until  quite  recently.  Indeed,  that 
gentleman  himself  informed  me  that  "  he  did  not  intend  to 
cast  up  accounts,  but  only  to  make  a  general  examination, 
especially  of  Dr.  Lanahan's  more  serious  charges  in  refer- 
ence to  the  bindery  and  printing-office." 

It  will  be  obvious  that  the  extreme  diversity  of  our  con- 
clusions arises  from  the  fact  that  those  expressed  by  Mr. 
Kilbreth  were  reached  without  personal  examination  of  the 
accounts  upon  the  ledger,  while  those  stated  in  my  Report 
embody  the  results  of  a  very  careful  "  personal  examina- 
tion "  of  those  accounts  extending  through  a  period  of 
nearly  a  year  and  a  half.  .  .  . 

"  Within  the  last  five  years  (1867-1871  inclusive)  I  see  no 
good  reason  to  complain  of  the  general  system  of  accounts, 
or  the  general  accuracy  and  care  with  which  the  books 
have  been  kept."  Page  44.  [The  time  of  E.  Grant's  service 
as  book-keeper.] 

That  is,  indeed,  a  most  extraordinai"y  statement! 

The  question  is  not  concerning  the  system  of  accounts— 


204  REPORT    OF  J.    A.    GUNN. 

all  admit  that  double  entry  is  the  proper  system— but  con- 
cerning the  practice,  i.  e.,  the  accuracy  and  care  with  which 
the  boolis  have  been  kept  under  that  system;  of  this,  in  the 
period  1867-1871  inclusive,  Mr.  Kilbreth  says  '*  I  see  no 
good  reason  to  complain." 

Truth  compels  me.  Dr.  Carlton,  to  say  precisely  the  re- 
verse, i.  e.,  I  deliberately  affirm  that  "  within  the  last  five 
years  "  there  is  more  to  complain  of  in  the  "  practice  "  than 
in  the  five  previous  years;  that  there  are  entries  which 
manifest  both  an  utter  "  want  of  competency  "  and  a  delib- 
erate purpose  so  to  manipulate  the  accounts  that  they  shall 
convey  an  incorrect  impression  concerning  the  business. 

Mr.  Kilbreth's  declaration  that  he  did  not  "  see  "  reason 
to  complain  of  such  entries  accords  with  the  fact  above 
stated,  viz.,  that  he  did  not  personally  and  carefully  ex- 
amine the  accounts  upon  the  ledger;  or  else  implies  that, 
while  regarding  such  entries  as  perhaps  "  not  very  felici- 
tous," he  is,  nevertheless,  not  disposed  "  to  complain " 
when  the  capital  stock  shown  upon  the  ledger  is  $54,372.11 
less  than,  according  to  the  Profit  and  Loss  Account,  its 
true  amount,  and  when,  for  the  purpose  of  making  it  show 
this  amount,  the  accounts  have  been  so  manipulated  that 
they  give  results  entirely  at  variance  with  the  facts. 

In  regard  to  this  entry  of  $54,372.11,  in  Capital  Stock 
Account,  on  November  30,  1867,  Mr.  Kilbreth  says:  "Any 
credit  to  Profit  and  Loss  made  prior  to  the  time  for  clos- 
ing the  books,  and  having  its  corresponding  debit,  as  it 
must,  to  some  account  other  than  Stock  Account,  neces- 
sarily shows  in  the  Profit  and  Loss  Account  as  a  profit. 
But  a  credit  to  Profit  and  Loss,  when  charged,  as  in 
this  case  to  Stock  Account,  is  simply  the  forgiveness  of  a 
debt  due  by  Profit  and  Loss,  and  is  entered  as  a  loss,  not, 
as  Mr.  Gouge  says,  as  a  profit.  It  is  a  charge  assumed  by 
the  proprietor  (Stock),  and  by  a  reduction  of  the  Capital, 
Profit  and  Loss  is  to  that  extent  set  free"!  The  meaning 
of  this  extraordinary  elucidation  of  the  mystery  of  double 
entry  is  only  this,  viz.,  that  entries  so  made  cancel  each 
other. 

But,  continuing  the  illustration,  if  the  "  proprietor  "  for- 
gave the  debt  due  by  Profit  and  Loss,  then  he  did  not 
receive  as  much  of  the  profit  of  his  business  as  he  should 
have  received  by  $54,372.11,  Avhich  is  precisely  what  has 
been  proved  in  the  "  Analysis,"  etc. 


REPORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN.  205 

However,  after  all  this  show  of  kindness,  "  the  proprietor, 
Stock,"  turns  out  to  have  been  only  another  one  of  many 
shabby  fellows  who  enjoy  a  reputation  for  liberality  to 
one  at  the  expense  of  another;  for  while  he  forgave  his 
debtor.  Profit  and  Loss,  he,  on  the  same  day,  robbed  his 
friend  Merchandise,  to  whom  he  was  indebted  for  nearly 
all  he  was  wortli,  of  precisely  the  same  amount,  or,  as 
Mr.  Kilbreth,  in  speaking  of  the  inventories,  enigmatically 
puts  it  (p.  45),  "  The  sum  of  $54,372.11  comes  in  to  make 
havoc  of  quantities."  Why  did  not  Mr.  Kilbreth,  so  that 
the  fact  might  be  known,  say,  in  intelligible  terms,  that 
this  amount  was  subtracted  from  the  inventory  of 
"  Merchandise  on  hand,"  and  so  made  havoc  of  a  quantity 
of  the  assets  of  the  Concern? 

1.  That  there  is  not  a  record  concerning  it  upon  any  of 
the  books  from  which  it  can  be  ascertained  what  errors 
are  referred  to. 

2.  The  manner  in  which  the  entry  was  made,  viz.,  that, 
the  profit  on  merchandise  being  $94,535.50,  merchandise  was 
debited  "  to  profit  and  loss  "  for  only  $40,103.39,  and  stock 
"  to  profit  and  loss  "  for  the  remainder,  $54,372.11,  the  effect 
of  which  was  that,  when  the  stock  account  was  credited 
"  by  profit  and  loss  "  for  the  net  profit,  $54,372.11  of  tins  net 
profit  was  canceled  by  the  previous  debit  "  to  profit  and 
loss  "  of  the  same  amount;  that  then  a  false  date,  "  1800," 
was  interpolated  to  give  the  impression  that  this  debit  of 
stock  to  profit  and  loss  occurred  in  1800,  while  the  debit 
of  merchandise  to  profit  and  loss  occurred  in  1807— although 
it  is  manifest  that  it  could  not  have  been  made  in  1800  from 
the  fact  that  it  is  a  mere  manipulation  of  the  profit  and 
loss  account  among  the  entries  under  date  of  November  30, 
1807;  and,  finally,  that  this  same  amount  was  subtracted 
from  the  inventory  of  merchandise,  so  that  merchandise 
account  would  shoAV  the  same  amount  of  profit  that  stood 
to  the  credit  of  profit  and  loss,  viz.,  $40,103.39,  instead  of 
the  true  amount  of  $94,535.50,  and  that  the  "  merchandise 
on  hand  "  might  be  reduced  by  the  same  amount  that  had 
been  subtracted  from  the  capital  stock. 

(Did  not  that  "  inevitable  sum  come  in  to  make  havoc  of 
quantities  "!) 

3.  The  statements  as  to  its  origin  are  contradictory,  viz., 
that  it  was  "  an  attempt  to  correct  the  closing  entries  of 
former   years,"   that   it   was   intended   thereby   to   correct 


206  REPORT   OF  J,    A.    GUNN. 

"  supposed  errors  in  the  Depository  accounts  "  and  "  sup- 
posed errors  "  of  tlie  book-keeper  in  1865,  and  that  it  was 
to  effect  a  "  reduction  of  values." 

4,  The  Church  seeks  an  explanation,  and  is  informed  that 
the  amount  placed  to  the  credit  of  profit  and  loss  "  was 
entered  as  a  loss,"  that  "  by  the  forgiveness  of  stock,  profit 
and  loss  was  set  free,"  and  that  "  in  1867  this  inevitable 
sum  came  in  to  make  havoc  of  quantities."  .  .  . 

I  have  said  that  the  subsidiary  books  afford  very  limited 
information  concerning  the  ledger  accounts.  It  is  also  true 
that  even  this  limited  information  has  been  rendered  un- 
trustworthy by  frequent  additions  to,  and  subtractions  from 
original  valuations  of  the  assets,  without  suflScient,  and,  in 
some  instances,  without  any  explanation. 

In  this  connection  I  ask  your  attention  to  the  irregu- 
larities referred  to  in  my  former  Report. 

I.  As  to  the  Capital  Stock: 

1st.  A  comparison  of  all  such  alternate  changes  in  the 
valuation  of  assets  found  upon  the  books  from  January, 
1852,  to  November  30,  1869,  discloses  the  fact  that  there 
was  thus  far,  at  the  latter  date,  an  excess  of  subtractions, 
or,  in  other  words,  an  apparent  deficit  in  the  capital  stock 
account  amounting  to  $180,105.30. 

2d.  On  that  day  there  was,  by  advancing  the  valuation 
of  certain  assets,  added  to  the  balance  of  capital  stock,  in 
addition  to  the  profit  on  the  business  of  the  year,  the  sum 
of  $186,114.64. 

3d.  Notwithstanding  such  addition  on  November  30,  1869, 
there  was,  on  November  30,  1871,  an  existing  deficit  in  the 
capital  stock  of  $54,372.11—1.  e.,  it  was  less  by  this  amount 
than,  according  to  the  books,  it  should  have  been. 

II.  As  to  the  Exhibits. 

1st.  A  careful  analysis  of  all  the  exhibits  from  December 
31,  1852,  to  November  30,  1871,  shows  that  they  have  not 
correctly  informed  the  Annual  Conferences  of  the  condi- 
tion and  worth  of  the  Concern. 

2d.  That  in  some  instances  the  amount  of  assets  has  been 
understated,  in  others  the  amount  of  liabilities  overstated, 
and  in  still  others  both  the  assets  and  the  liabilities  have 
been  incorrectly  stated. 

The  evidence  of  these  facts  I  have  endeavored  so  to 
arrange  in  tabular  form  that  it  may  be  intelligible,  and  that 
its  significance  may  be  readily  apparent.  .  .  . 


REPORT   or  J.    A.    GUNN.  207 

As  my  work  is  simply  professional,  it  has  seemed  to  be 
my  obvious  and  imperative  duty  to  report  to  you  whatever 
the  books  might  disclose,  and  I  have  therefore  directed 
your  attention  to  the  irregularities  above  indicated.  Aware 
that  my  conclusions  may  be  questioned,  I  submit  also  the 
evidence  upon  which  they  are  based. 

There  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion  as  to  the  serious 
import  of  the  "  acts  and  practices  "  herein  stated,  or  the 
results  demonstrated  by  the  accompanying  evidence.  I 
therefore  submit  them  without  comment  for  such  explana- 
tion as  their  importance  requires. 

Respectfully,  etc.,  JOHN  A.  GUNN. 

May  35,  1872. 

The  above  is  followed  by  the  evidence  accom- 
panying the  report — ^maldng  two-thirds  of  the 
report — all  of  which  was  left  out  of  the  Journal 
of  the  General  Conference.  I  select  only  a  few 
specimens,  which  I  give  below. 

FINANCIAL   EXHIBITS   TO   THE    ANNUAL 
CONFERENCE. 

When  the  Agents  of  the  Book  Concern  pre- 
sented to  the  Annual  Conferences  their  annual 
exhibits  of  the  financial  condition  of  the  Concern, 
those  bodies  supposed,  of  course,  that  they  were 
listening  to  truthful  statements — that  is,  that 
the  exhibits  agreed  with  the  assets  as  shown  in 
the  ledger.  But  Mr.  Gunn  says  (and  he  gives 
the  evidence  in  detail) : 

In  reference  to  the  Exhibits. 

1.  That  the  Exhibits,  from  December  31,  1854,  to  Novem- 
ber 30,  1869,  inclusive,  have  not  truly  informed  the  Annual 
Conferences  of  the  condition  of  the  Book  Concern  as  shown 
on  the  Ledger;  that,  on  the  contrary,  while  they  appear  to 


208 


REPORT    OF   J.    A.    GUNN. 


report  the  existing  Liabilities  and  tlie  full  amount  of 
Assets  (subject  only  to  a  specified  "  discount  for  probable 
losses  "  on  "  Notes  and  Accounts "  receivable),  there  has, 
in  fact,  been  uniformly  a  subtraction  from  the  real  worth 
of  the  concern  (in  addition  to  the  "  discount  for  probable 
losses  "),  which  has  been  accomplished  in  some  instances 
by  suppressing  large  amounts  of  the  Assets,  in  others  by 
fictitiously  increasing  the  Liabilities,  and  yet  others  by 
both  these  methods  combined  (see  Exhibits  in  Appendix, 
especially  those  from  18GG  to  18G9). 

He  analyzes  the  exhibits  for  the  above  years, 
and  shows  the  amounts  that  were  "  suppressed/' 
that  is,  not  reported.  I  cite  from  his  report  the 
following : 


1857. 
1858. 
1859. 
1860. 
ISGl. 
1862. 
18G3. 
18G4. 
1865. 
1866. 
1867. 


Differ'ce  between  the  I 


edger  and  Exhibits, 


$50, 

47, 

80, 

7, 

112, 
38, 
25, 
36, 
25, 
54, 
80, 


.887.80 
057,64 
250.85 
817.21 
437.18 
582.50 
34G.86 
013.99 
584.29 
372.11 
736.93 


For  the  first  time  in  more  than  twelve  years, 
the  assets  stated  on  the  exhibit  were  the  same 
as  those  given  in  the  ledger.  Of  this  agreement 
Mr.  Gunn  says: 

But  observe,  this  exceptional  agreement  arises  from  the 
fact  that  this  year  the  additional  subtraction  is  made  on 
the  Ledger,  but  in  such  way  that  it  does  not  appear,  i.  e., 
by  showing  in  the  Profit  and  Loss  Account  $51,739.48  less 
profit  than  was  actually  earned. 


Of  the  exhibit  of  1869,  Mr.  Gunn  says: 


REPORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN.  .      209 

In  the  Exhibit  of  November  30,  1869,  issued  about  three 
mouths  after  the  first  public  allegation  of  defective  man- 
agement—although there  was,  for  the  first  time  since  1854 
neither  under-statement  of  Assets  nor  over-statement  of 
Liabilities— there  was 

(1)  An  incorrect  statement  of  the  Profits  of  the  year. 

It  is  said  "  the  Profits  of  the  year  have  been  $112,693.65," 
whereas,  according  to  the  Ledger,  the  Gross  Profits  on 
Mdse.  alone  were  $249,106.62,  and  the  Net  Profit  on  the 
whole  business,  shown  by  the  Profit  and  Loss  Account,  was 
$193,223.96. 

(2)  An  incorrect  statement  of  the  "  Increase  of  Capital." 
It  is  said  "  Increase  of  Capital  in- 
cluded in  the  above  Exhibit $82,252,56," 

whereas  by  the  Ledger,  the  Net 
Profit  was,  as  above $193,223.96 

and  there  was  added  for  increased 
valuation  of  Real  Estate 113,349.20 

Total  Gain,  $306,573.16 
Out  of  which  was  paid  by  order 

of  General  Conference 30,441,09 

And  the  amount  actually  added  as 

Increase  of  Capital  was $276,132.07 

Difference    $193,879.51 

J.  A.  GUNN,  Accountant. 

Mr.  Gunn  next  shows  the  difference  between 
the  ledger  and  the  exhibits,  as  to  the  net  profits 
of  the  Book  Concern,  as  follows: 


Ledger. 

Exhibit. 

Difference. 

1858       Net     Profits,       36,358.04 

35,709.02 

649.02 

1859. 

52,429.76 

28,458.11 

23,971.65 

1860. 

43,491.90 

43,491.90 

1861. 

11,624.05 

11,624.05 

1862. 

46,858.34 

46,858.34 

1863. 

74,528.37 

64,993.26 

9,535.11 

1864. 

71,091.73 

57,849.32 

13,242.41 

210  REPORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN. 

Ledger.  Exhibit.  Difference. 

18G5.  Net    Profits,  30,281.42  30,281.42 

1866.  "  26,735.26  30,271.99  3,536.73 

1867.  "  81,602.16  62,552.39  19,049.77 

1868.  "  81,326.89  83,009.03  1,682.14 

1869.  "  306,573.16  112,693.65  193,879.51 

1870.  "  82,683.41  75,382.23  7,301.18 

It  is  seen  in  the  above,  that  in  1860,  the  ledger 
shows  no  profit,  whilst  the  exhibit  to  the  Annual 
Conferences  reports  |43,491.09  profit.  In  1861, 
the  ledger  showed  |11,642.05  profit,  and  the  ex- 
hibit reported  no  profit.  In  1862,  the  ledger 
showed  no  profit,  but  the  exhibit  reported  |46,- 
858.34  profit.  And  that  in  the  above  fourteen 
years,  only  in  1865  is  there  any  agreement  be- 
tween the  ledger  and  the  exhibits.  Why  did 
not  the  ledger  and  the  exhibits  agree  in  all  cases? 
Because  large  amounts  of  the  profits  were  sup- 
pressed, and  thus  the  Annual  Conferences  were 
kept  in  ignorance. 

From  Mr.  Gunn's  report,  I  select  the  following, 
showing  the  difference  between  the  ledger  and 
the  exhibits  to  the  Annual  Conference — ^flrst,  as 
to  the  amount  of  "cash"  in  hand;  second,  as  to 
"notes  and  accounts,"  and  third,  as  to  "liabili- 
ties." It  will  be  seen  that  in  only  six  out  of 
twelve  years,  the  ledger  and  exhibits  agree  as  to 
cash  in  hand.  But  I  shall  furnish  proof  that  in 
those  six  cases,  neither  the  ledger,  nor  the  ex- 
hibits truthfully  stated  the  amount  of  cash,  be- 
cause Dr.  Carlton  kept  large  amounts  of  the 
money  of  the  Book  Concern  in  his  personal  and 
private  account. 


REPORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN.  211 

Ledger. 

1857— Cash  on  hand 38,387.19 

Notes  and  Accounts 223,413. 15 

Liabilities;  Notes  and  Accounts  197,354.23 

1858-Cash  on  hand 41,884.07 

Notes  and  Accounts    223.774.39 

Liabilities:  Notes  and  Accounts  128,088.82 

1859-Cashonhand 39,082.24 

Notes  and  Accounts 209,840  52 

1860— Cash  on  hand 20,429  49 

Notes  and  Accounts 182,888.90 

1861 -Cash  on  hand 38,544.16 

Notes  and  Accounts    173,321.00 

Liabilities;  Notes  and  Accounts    56,381.65 

1862— Cash  on  hand 23,691.96 

Notes  and  Accounts 165,454.25 

Liabilities;  Notes  and  Accounts    29,681.88 

1863— Cash  on  hand  6,940.33 

Notes  and  Accounts 231,342.88 

Liabilities;  Notes  and  Accounts    37,199.47 

1864— Caih  on  hand 17.705  40 

Notes  and  Accounts 240,919.83 

Liabilities;  Notes  and  Accounts  104,032  05 

1865-Cash  on  hand 24.470,85 

Notes  and  Accounts 299,507.07 

Liabilities;  Notes  and  Accounts  124,693.41 

1866-Cash  on  hand 19,503.75 

Notes  and  Accounts.. 235,488.55 

Liabilities;  Notes  and  Accounts  116,634.45 

1867-Ca8h  on  hand 41,057.42 

Notes  and  Accounts 291,837.01 

Liabilities;  Notes  and  Accounts  100,541.37 

1868-Ca8h  on  hand 52,529.94 

Notes  and  Accounts    238,444  64 

1869-  

1870-Cash  on  hand 27,207.03 

Notes  and  Accounts 356,016.03 

These  startling  discrepancies,  I  venture  to  say 
cannot  be  matclied  by  any  business  house  in  New 
York,  or  anywhere  else.  Yet  Mr.  J.  P.  Kilbreth, 
who  came  all  the  way  from  Cincinnati  to  exam- 
ine, and  for  his  "  services  declined  compensation," 
said  of  these  accounts:  "My  conclusion  is  that 
the  business  is  not  in  a  confused  or  chaotic  con- 
dition, but  in  a  decidedly  understandable  shape, 


Exhibit. 

Difl'erence. 

16,081.36 
2-^4,066,76 
166,986.14 

22,305.83 

653.61 

30,568.09 

26,884.07 
237,513.17 
110,654.06 

15,000.00 
13,738.78 
17,404.06 

17,000.31 
209,840  52 

22,082.24 

20,429.49 
120,759.27 

62,129.63 

30,140.41 
115,547.34 
47,977.90 

8,403.75 

57,773.66 

8,403.75 

23,691.96 
110,302.84 
29,681.88 

55,151.41 

6,940.33 
154,228.59 
34,899.83 

77,ii4.29 
2,299.64 

17,705.40 
241.492.42 
105,032.05 

572.59 
1,000  00 

24,470.85 
181,853.85 
111,362.28 

117,653'.22 
13,331.13 

19,503.75 
126,460  12 
126,674  93 

10i9,b28.43 
10,040.48 

5.323.49 

161.558.01 

19.807.44 

35.733.93 
127,279.00 
80,733.93 

52,.529.94 
158,96310 

79,481.54 

19,905  85 
291,593  85 

7,301.18 
64,512.18 

212  REPORT    OF  J.    A.    GUNN. 

and  tliat  it  is  not  difficult  to  learn  the  true  state 
of  affairs  from  tlie  books." 

In  further  illustration  of  the  reckless  and 
dishonest  methods  of  the  Book  Concern  manage- 
ment, I  ask  attention  to  the  following  further 
statement  from  Dr.  Carlton's  own  accountant, 
Mr.  John  A.  Gunn. 

I  select  also  the  following  from  Mr.  Gunn's 
report,  showing  that  in  some  years  as  the  sales 
diminished  the  profits  increased: 

On  sales  of  merchandise  in  18G4 $526,087.98 

There  is  shown  a  profit  of  49,084.32 

On  sales  of  merchandise  in  1865 628,103.95 

There  is  shown  a  profit  of 62,124.18 

On  sales  of  merchandise  in  1866 686,122.26 

There  is  shown  a  profit  of 104,726.34 

On  sales  of  merchandise  in  1867 694,885.58 

There  is  shown  a  profit  of 40,163.39 

On  sales  of  merchandise  in  1868 619,473.27 

There  is  shown  a  profit  of 176,383.61 

On  sales  of  merchandise  in  1869 594,191.25 

There  is  shown  a  profit  of 249,106.62 

On  sales  of  merchandise  in  1870 588,645.82 

There  is  shown  a  profit  of  134,115.74 

On  sales  of  merchandise  in  1871 624,530.08 

There  is  shown  a  profit  of 136,240.31 

I  beg  the  reader  to  pause  and  ponder  the  fol- 
lowing analysis  of  the  above  statement  of  amount 
of  sales  and  profits.  See  if  it  does  not  suggest 
a  basis  for  my  charge  of  "chaos,"  as  well  as 
fraud: 


REPORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN.  213 

In  1865,  with  sales  more  than  In  1864  by  $102,015.97,  the 
profits  were  greater  by  only  $13,039.86. 

In  1866,  with  sales  more  than  in  1865  by  only  $58,018.31, 
the  profits  shown  were  greater  by  $42,602.16. 

In  1867,  with  sales  more  than  in  1866  by  $8,763.22,  the 
profits  shown  Avere  less  by  $64,562.95. 

In  1868,  with  sales  less  than  in  1867  by  $75,412.31,  the 
profits  were  more  by  $136,220.22. 

In  1869,  with  sales  less  than  in  1868  by  $25,282.02,  the 
profits  shown  were  greater  by  $72,723.01. 

In  1870,  with  sales  less  than  in  1869  by  only  $5,545.43,  the 
profits  shown  were  less  by  $114,990.88. 

In  1871,  with  sales  more  than  in  1870  by  $35>884.26,  the 
profits  shown  were  greater  by  only  $2,124.57. 

In  the  three  years  that  the  sales  were  less,  the  profits 
were  wouderfnlly  increased! 

Mr.  Gunn  further  says: 

There  had  been  so  constantly,  directly  and  indirectly, 
alternate  additions  to,  and  subtractions  from  its  Capital 
Stock  Account,  that  it  was  not  possible  at  any  time  to  learn 
from  that  account  what  the  Methodist  Book  Concern  was 
I'eally  worth;  and  on  November  30,  1869,  there  was  added 
to  its  apparent  Capital  Stock,  in  addition  to  regular  profit 
on  the  business,  the  sum  of  $186,105.30. 

STATEMENT  OF  ADDITIONS  TO  AND  SUBTRACTIONS 
FROM  THE  CAPITAL  STOCK  ACCOUNT  OF  THE 
METHODIST  BOOK  CONCERN  SINCE  JANUARY 
1,  1852,  AND  ADJUSTMENT  OF  THE  APPAR- 
ENTLY  EXISTING   DEFICIT   ON  NOVEMBER  30, 

1869. 

[Here   follows    a  tabulation    of    subtractions 

from  and  additions  to  the  assets  from  1854  to 

1869,    showing    an  excess    of    subtractions    of 
1186,105.30.] 


214  REPORT   OF  J,    A,    GUNN. 

To  return  the  amount  ($186,105.30)  of  these  latter  sub- 
tractions to  the  Capital  Stock  Account,  the  value  of  real 
estate  in 

Mulberry  and  Mott  Streets  was  increased $80,000.00 

Pittsburgh  was  increased  5,349.20 

San  Francisco  was  increased. 28,000.00 

Added  to  Merchandise  Inventory 61,365.44 

Added  to  Printing  Presses* 11,400.00 

$186,114.64 

The  increase  was  too  much  by  $9.34,  and  it  appears  by 
the  Ledger  that  at  the  close  of  the  next  year  the  Profit 
and  Loss  Account  was  debited,  and  Real  Estate  in  Pitts- 
burgh credited  $9.38  without  any  explanation  whatever,  but 
evidently  to  cancel  excess  of  increase,  thus  making  the  real 

increase,  November  30,  1869 $186,105.26 

a  difference  of  04 

$186,105.22 

The  difference  of  4  cents  may  reasonably  be  attributed  to 
oversight  in  computing  deficit. 

Of  the  above  increase  of  the  assets,  Mr.  Gunn 
says  "Observe  the  manner  in  which  this  in- 
crease was  made.  The  only  record  concerning 
it  is  found  on  page  83  of  the  'Balance  Book/ 
upon  which  are  recorded  copies  of  all  trial  bal- 
ances, balance  sheets,  etc.,  to  which  no  one  would 
think  of  looking  for  an  original  entry. 

"  It  must  be  obvious  in  view  of  all  the  foregoing 
facts,  that  the  Capital  Stock  Account  has  been 
so  complicated  by  the  manipulations  of  succes- 
sive years — especially  since  1865 — that  it  is  true 
balance  cannot  possibly  be  determined  until  the 

*  Some  of  those  printing  presses  had  been  in  use  many  years ;  did 
that  increase  their  value  ?  The  $11,000  increase  was  taken  off  the  next 
year. 


RErORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN,  215 

investigation  is  completed  by  a  thorough  exami- 
nation of  all  the  records  of  the  business  in  its 
various  departments,  and  a  complete  valuation 
and  scrutiny  of  the  assets  and  liabilities  of  the 
Concern. 

"  The  propriety  of  alternately  reducing  and  ad- 
vancing by  the  amount  of  estimated  or  antici- 
pated profit,  the  valuation  of  the  real  estate, 
whereby  the  books  may  be  made  to  show  any 
required  amount  of  assets,  is  certainly  question- 
able; and  it  is  difficult  to  understand  why  the 
sum  of  169,384.23,  subtracted  from  the  value  of 
'merchandise  on  hand,'  January  1,  1862,  should 
have  been  returned  to  the  Capital  Stock  Novem- 
ber 30,  1869 ;  for  if  there  was  in  1862  undervalu- 
ation, its  effect  was  only  to  increase  the  profit 
when  the  merchandise  was  sold;  and  if  the  mer- 
chandise thus  reduced  had  remained  on  hand 
until  November,  1869,  then  the  errors  of  under- 
valuation in  succeeding  years,  which  were  the 
alleged  justification  of  farther  reductions, 
amounted  to  considerably  more  than  that  sum." 

Mr.  Gunn  further  says,  "  It  is  not  to  be  under- 
stood that  the  Capital  Stock  Account  having 
been  credited  with  |186,105.30,  now  shows  the 
true  balance,  but  only  that  certain  sums  previ- 
ously subtracted,  and  amounting  in  the  aggre- 
gate to  $186,105.30,  were  on  November  30,  1869, 
added  to  the  Capital  Stock  Account;  for  the 
books  show  that,  notwithstanding  that  addition, 
there  was  on  November  30,  1869,  a  discrepancy 
of  154,372.11." 


216  EEPORT   OF  J.    A.    GUNN. 

This  "  discrepancy "  added  to  tlie  above  ficti- 
tious addition  of  |186,105.30,  shows  that  when 
the  frauds  were  discovered  in  1869,  there  was  a 
deficit  in  the  books  of  |240,477.41. 

Was  not  the  above  addition  of  |186,105.30  an 
easy  way  to  make  up  deficits  and  correct  "dis- 
crepancies" when  the  charge  of  fraud  was  im- 
pending? It  is  one  of  the  many  reasons  why 
Dr.  Carlton  and  his  Book  Committee  were  op- 
posed to  an  examination  of  the  books,  except 
by  accountants  chosen  by  himself,  and  who  were 
to  report  to  himself.  Thanks  to  the  Providence 
that  ordered  the  selection  of  Mr.  John  A.  Gunn, 
the  Presbyterian,  who  could  neither  be  used  nor 
bribed.  Yes,  and  thanksl  to  the  same  overruling 
Providence  that  caused  Mr.  Gunn  to  seek  a  pri- 
vate interview  with  Bishops  Janes  and  Simpson, 
who  advised  him  not  to  allow  his  report  to  be 
smothered,  which  led  him  to  deliver  it  to  Dr.  Carl- 
ton in  a  printed  "  form,"  which  prevented  it  go- 
ing in  manuscript  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  J.  Van 
Vleck,  whoi  was  so  anxious  to  sei've  Dr.  Carlton, 
that  he  wanted  to  write  a  report  on  the  books 
which  he  had  not  examined. 


EEPORT  OF  E.  H.  GOUGE. 

The  few  selections  I  have  given  from  the 
report  of  Dr.  Carlton's  accountant  so  fully  estab- 
lish my  charges  as  to  the  chaotic  and  fraudulent 
condition  of  the  books  of  account,  that  I  shall 
give  only  a  part  of  the  report  of  my  accountant. 
When  he  had  finished  his  report,  another  ac- 
countant examined  it  and  tested  its  correctness. 
This  explains  Mr.  Appel's  note  appended  to  the 
report. 

REPORT  OF  E.  H.   GOUGE. 

New  York,  January  9,  1871. 
Rev.  JOHN  LANAHAN. 

Sir. — Having  been  employed  by  you  to  make  an  examina- 
tion of  the  books  of  account  of  tlie  Metliodist  Book  Concern, 
I  beg  leave  respectfully  to  submit  the  following  report: 

The  books  are  not  kept  in  that  clear  and  intelligible 
manner  that  should  characterize  books  relating  to  any 
business,  but  rather  in  a  very  bungling  and  inaccurate 
naanner,  neither  correct  in  theory  or  fact. 

It  is  impossible  to  tell  what  the  original  entries  were  in 
many  cases,  on  account  of  the  erasures  that  have  been 
made;  and  in  other  instances  alterations  have  been  made 
without  any  explanation  whatever,  so  that  it  is  impossible 
to  tell  whether  the  entries  are  correct  or  not. 

Information  that  is  absolutely  necessary  to  the  proper 
transaction  and  dispatch  of  business  furnished  by  some  of 
the  books  is  very  meager  and  unsatisfactory;  as,  for  in- 
stances, the  Bills  Receivable  Book  in  the  majority  of  cases 
does  not  contain  a  record  of  Avhere  notes  due  the  Concern  are 
payable,  or  how  long  they  have  to  run;  and  when  they  are 
paid,  the  simple  remark  "  Paid  "  is  made  on  the  margin, 

217 


218  REPORT  OP  B.  H.   GOUGE. 

without  any  reference  to  dates.  The  same  is  true  of  the 
Bills  Payable  Book;  the  place  where  and  the  time  when 
notes  due  by  the  Concern  are  payable  is  not  recorded. 

In  my  experience  as  an  accountant  for  more  than  twenty- 
five  years  I  have  never  seen  or  known  a  ledger  to  be  used 
as  a  book  of  original  entries,  which  I  find  to  be  the  case 
in  this  examination;  as,  for  instance,  whatever  is  standing 
to  the  debit  or  credit  of  Profit  and  Loss  at  the  end  of  the 
year  is  transferred  bodily  from  one  account  to  the  other, 
and  so  with  Merchandise,  Expense  Account,  Bindery, 
Printing  Ofl3ce,  and  many  other  accounts,  instead  of  being 
properly  journalized. 

The  only  entries  that  are  made  in  the  Journal  are  the 
sales,  and  in  all  other  cases  the  cash  books  are  used  as 
journals,  and  a  great  variety  of  entries,  other  than  of 
cash,  are  made  there  indiscriminately  and  improperly  with 
the  cash. 

The  accounts  with  the  Bindery  do  not  exhibit  a  correct 
statement  of  its  profits,  or  what  it  owes  the  Concern.  I 
understand  the  account  to  be  kept  by  charging  it  (the 
Bindery)  with  the  amount  of  stock  on  hand,  with  the 
materials  purchased  and  amount  expended  in  wages; 
and  at  the  end  of  the  year  it  is  credited  with  the  value 
of  work  turned  out  and  the  inventory  of  stock  on  hand. 
The  value  of  the  work  turned  out  is  estimated  by  taking 
the  actual  cost  of  the  materials  and  wages  and  adding 
25  per  cent.  Upon  this  basis  there  cannot  be  such  a  thing 
as  a  loss  in  the  Bindery.  The  Concern  must  always  show 
a  profit;  and  yet  in  the  year  1864  there  appears  to  have 
been  a  loss  in  the  Bindery  of  $4,254.50. 

The  inventory  of  the  Bindery  of  November  30,  1864,  is 
entered  as  $161,641.08,  and  upon  that  basis  a  profit  is 
shown  of  $18,908.39.  In  1865  it  is  claimed  that  this  inven- 
tory should  have  been  $138,'±78.19.  Allowing  that  the  error 
of  $23,162.89  did  actually  exist,  a  correct  statement  of  the 
Bindery  account  on  November  30,  1864,  would  show  a  loss 
of  $4,254.50.  It  is  diflicult  to  see  in  what  manner  any  error 
in  the  amount  on  the  inventory  could  have  arisen,  since  the 
inventory  itself  is  the  original  record  from  which  the  entry 
in  the  Ledger  is  made.  This  shows  the  amount  to  be 
$138,478.19,  and  the  entry  of  $161,641.08  on  the  Ledger  is 
a  false  entry.  .  .  . 


REPORT  OF  B.  H.  GOUGE.  219 

In  Merchandise  account,  December  31,  1862,  page  239, 
Ledger  O,  a  difference  of  $69,384.23  in  the  inventory  Janu- 
ary 1,  1862,  is  credited.  There  is  no  record  to  show  how 
the  difference  arose  or  what  it  consisted  of,  the  Ledger 
being  used  as  a  boolc  of  original  entries. 

Periodical  account,  page  201,  Ledger  O,  December  31, 
1861,  is  credited  with  "debts  due,"  $20,964.00;  $10,000  of 
this  amount  is  brought  forward  from  the  beginning  of  the 
year,  and  the  remainder,  $10,964.00,  has  been  interlined 
after  the  account  was  balanced.  The  interlineation  is 
proved  by  the  footings. 

The  footings,  as  they  stand  now,  are  $101,965.01.  The 
correct  footings  are  $112,929.01. 

The  effect  of  this  entry  is  to  show  a  seeming  increase 
of  the  amount  of  profits  on  periodicals  of  $20,964. 

On  page  6,  Ledger  O,  Brown  Brothers  &  Co.,  of  this  city, 
are  charged  with  "  cash  on  deposit,"  during  the  year  1861, 
amounting  to  $20,900.00,  and  on  December  31,  1862,  credited 
by  cash,  $292.14,  and  the  balance,  $20,607.86,  is  carried 
to  profit  and  loss,  thus  making  them  appear  as  indebted 
to  the  Concern  to  the  amount  of  $20,607.86,  and  unable  to 
pay  it. 

The  inventories  of  merchandise  on  hand  appear  on  the 
inventory  books  as  follows: 

Dec.  31,  1862  $110,932.06 

Dec.  31,  1863   128,390.22 

Nov.  30,  1864     136,039.88 

Nov.  30,  1865 135,644.62 

Nov,  30,  1867  157,969.02 

On  the  ledger  they  are  entered  as  follows: 

Jan.     1,  1863    $112,460.36 

Jan.     1,  1864   130,390.22 

Nov.  30,  1864  138,238,40 

Nov.  30,  1865     137,644.62 

Nov.  30,  1867     105,596.11 

The  inventory  of  merchandise  on  hand  for  1868  on  the 
inventory  book  is  $161,403.99,  and  by  a  deduction  of  15 
per  cent,  it  is  reduced  to  $130,738.04,  and  on  the  ledger  it 
is  entered  $140,895.52. 


220  REPORT  OF  E.   H.  GOUGE. 

On  the  debit  side  of  the  capital  stock  account,  Ledger  O, 
page  261,  I  find  the  following  entry:  "To  P.  &  L.  for  cor. 
of  errors,  $54,372.11";  and  this  amount  is  credited  to  profit 
and  loss  account,  page  115,  Ledger  O;  or,  in  other  words, 
entered  as  a  profit.  If  an  error  really  did  occur  in  the  in- 
ventory the  net  assets  on  November  30,  1867,  should  be 
$618,479.41,  instead  of  $672,851.52;  and  on  November  30, 
1869,  $948,057.94,  instead  of  $1,002,430.05,  as  appears  on  the 
ledger. 

On  the  trial  balance,  taken  November  30,  1869,  the  follow- 
ing items  appear: 

"  Additions  to  Real  Estate." 

Mulberry  and  Mott  Streets $80,000.00 

Pittsburgh    5,349.20 

San  Francisco  28,000.00 

Added  to  Mdse.  Inventory 61,365.44 

Added  to  Printing,  old  Printing  Presses  11,400.00 

Total $186,114.64 

In  regard  to  the  $11,400,  the  words  used  in  the  inventory 
book  are:  "  Increased  value  of  '  presses,'  "  (and  not  "  added 
to  printing  department,")  $11,400;  which  total  is  carried  to 
the  credit  of  profit  and  loss  account,  made  to  increase  the 
profits  of  the  year,  and  added  to  the  assets  of  the  Concern. 
The  several  accounts  are  debited  with  the  increased  values, 
as  above.  The  trial  balance  book  is  made  the  book  of 
original  entries  in  this  case,  and  the  ledger  entries  are 
posted  from  this  book.  .  .  . 

It  appears  by  the  books,  from  1801  to  1868,  inclusive,  that 
the  Concern  has  lost  by  interest  account  the  sum  of  $8,- 
704.99,  which  seems  quite  extraordinary,  judging  from  the 
large  cash  balance  on  hand  at  the  end  of  each  month. 

On  page  108,  Ledger  "  P,"  Elihu  Grant's  account,  I  find 
these  entries: 

Nov.  30,  1870.    By  additional  salary,  1869 $1,000.00 

Nov.  30,  1870.    By  salary  to  date 3,000.00 


$4,000.00* 

♦About  tbe  same  time  Mr.  Grant  had  borrowed  from  the  Senior 
Agent  $1100. 


REPORT  OF  E.  H.  GOUGE.  221 

Thus  having  been  paid  four  thousand  dollars  for  one 
year's  services. 

Very  respectfully  yours,  E.  H.  GOUGE, 

Accountant. 

I  certify  that  I  have  examined  the  books  of  the  Methodist 
Book  Concern  and  the  above  report,  and  I  find  the  report 
correct.  CHAS.  A.  APPEL, 

Accountant. 

Of  the  increase  of  Elihu  Grant's  salary,  I  knew 
nothing  till  I  was  informed  by  my  account- 
ant. I  was  informed  by  the  assistant  book-keep- 
er that  at  the  same  time  Dr.  Carlton  had  added 
a  |1,000  to  the  salary  of  his  nephew,  the  clerk 
in  charge  of  the  store;  and  $500  to  the  salary 
of  the  cashier,  his  brother-in-law;  and  |500  to 
the  salary  of  the  young  man  who  was  called 
assistant  cashier,  but  was  only  a  post  office  run- 
ner. That  young  man  was  brought  to  the  Con- 
cern by  Dr.  Carlton  in  the  third  year  of  my 
Agency  without  a  word  of  consultation  with  me. 
I  knew  not  where  he  came  from.  Before  he  had 
been  there  long  I  learned  that  he  had  gotten 
to  speculating.  Sometime  after  my  connection 
with  the  house  had  ended,  the  New  York  papers 
announced  that  he  was  under  arrest  for  stealing 
$15,000  of  the  Bonds  of  the  Book  Concern,  and 
|4,000  in  money.  The  easy  way  in  which  the 
frauds  I  had  unearthed  were  disposed  of,  may^ 
have  emboldened  him  in  the  theft.  If  I  had  been 
connected  with  the  Concern  at  the  time,  I  might, 
perhaps,  have  been  charged  with  giving  publicity 
to  the  theft,  and  "  inspiring  the  criticisms  of  the 
press."  What  was  done  with  the  unfortunate 
young  man,  I  never  inquired.  I  withhold  his  name. 


SUPPRESSED   REPORT  OF  AN   ACCOUNT- 
ANT, MADE  SEVERAL  YEARS  BEFORE 
I  BECAME  ONE   OF  THE  AGENTS. 

As  far  back  as  1860,  there  were  misgivings 
as  to  the  managemeiit  of  the  Book  Concern,  the 
Agents,  in  their  report  to  the  General  Confer- 
ence, referring  to  the  matter  thus:  "In  the 
course  of  our  business,  we  have  met  with  com- 
plaints in  the  papers  which  have  done  injustice 
to  the  Church  and  its  officers  in  the  Book  Con- 
cern. For  example,  it  has  been  represented 
that  the  Concern  has  been  badly  managed.  It 
has  been  compared  with  certain  private  pub- 
lishing houses,  and  it  has  been  said  that  the 
sales  and  profits  have  been  small  for  capital 
invested,  etc.,  etc." 

After  the  presentation  of  the  report  from 
which  the  above  is  quoted,  the  General  Confer- 
ence adopted  the  following,  in  regard  to  both 
the  Houses,  East  and  West: 

Resolved,  That  the  Agents  and  Book  Committee  be,  and 
hereby  are,  instructed  to  have  the  accounts  of  tlie  Concerns 
in  their  care  examined  and  audited  annually  by  a  com- 
petent accountant,  and  the  report  of  such  examination  laid 
before  the  Committee  at  their  annual  session. 

This,  however,  was  never  done  for  a  single 
year,  at  least  in  the  New  York  House.    It  is 

222 


SUPPRESSED  REPORT  OF  AN  ACCOUNTANT.    223 

certainly  singular  that  the  Agents  were  to  be 
a  part  of  a  committee  to  "  examine  and  audit " 
their  own  accounts.  I  should  have  asked  to  be 
excused  from  having  anything  to  do  with  such 
matters  except  as  questioned  by  the  Committee. 
I  judge  it  was  an  oversight. 

Under  the  above  resolution  the  General  Com- 
mittee appointed  two  of  its  members;  one  a  resi- 
dent of  New  Jersey  and  the  other  of  New  York, 
to  act  with  the  Agents  in  having  the-  accounts 
examined  and  audited.  An  accountant  was  em- 
ployed, who,  August  15th,  1862,  made  the  fol- 
lowing report,  not,  however,  to  the  Sub-commit- 
tee, nor  to  the  General  Committee,  but  to  the 
Agents,  which  shows  that  they,  or  one  of  them, 
controlled  the  whole  matter: 

Messrs.  Carlton  and  Porter: 

Gentlemen. — Some  weeks  ago  I  called  at  the  Book-room, 
at  your  request,  to  examine  into  the  feasibility  of  examin- 
ing and  auditing  the  accounts  of  the  Methodist  Book  Con- 
cern. After  a  hasty  glance  at  the  number  and  character  of 
the  accounts,  I  expressed  the  opinion  that  an  examination 
such  as  was  proposed  would  be  of  no  practical  value,  un- 
less it  was  made  thorough  by  tracing  every  entry  back  to 
its  source,  which  would  be  so  laborious  that  it  would  be 
impossible  to  make  the  examination  in  the  time  that  could 
be  devoted  to  the  work.*  A  subsequent  critical  investiga- 
tion of  the  nature  of  the  accounts,  and  of  the  manner  in 
which  they  are  kept,  has  more  than  confirmed  me  in  the 
opinion  then  expressed.  It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  say 
just  hoAV  much  time  would  be  needed  to  make  the  exami- 
nation, but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  if  the  work  were 

♦  I  suppose  the  accouniant  meant  "  the  time  "  he  could  devote  to  the 
work  as  lie  was  at  that  time,  and  had  been  for  several  years,  per- 
manently employed  as  bonk  keeper  in  a  large  commercial  house  in 
New  York.  An  accountant  could  easily  have  been  gotten  whose 
entire  lime  was  devoted  to  just  such  work. 


224    SUPPRESSED  REPORT  OF  AN  ACCOUNTANT. 

performed  by  an  accountant  suflSciently  master  of  his  busi- 
ness to  do  it  well,  it  would  be  a  labor  of  months  to  examine 
and  audit  the  accounts  of  the  Concern  for  a  single  year. 

We  subsequently  held  some  conversation  about  the 
various  methods  of  keeping  accoimts,  and  their  adaptation 
to  the  nature  and  peculiarities  of  the  business  to  be  trans- 
acted; and  before  leaving,  I  was  requested  by  you  to  ex- 
amine into  the  method  or  system  of  accounts  kept  by  the 
Concern,  and  to  make  a  report  thereon,  including  in  it  sug- 
gestions as  to  changes  in  the  system  that  I  might  think 
could  be  advantageously  made. 

I  have  accordingly  examined  somewhat  closely  into  the 
nature  of  the  business  transacted,  and  the  manner  in  which 
the  accounts  are  kept,  and,  as  the  result,  beg  leave  to 
make  the  following  report. 

The  books  of  the  Concern  appear  to  contain  a  full  record 
of  the  business  in  all  its  departments.  As  far  as  my  obser- 
vation extended,  I  discovered  no  omission  in  recording 
every  fact  that  was  necessary  to  a  perfect  understanding 
of  the  business,  or  to  a  full  statement  of  its  results.  In 
the  manner  of  arranging  the  accounts,  however,  they  are 
faulty.  An  effort  seems  to  have  been  made  to  have  the 
books  kept  systematically,  but  the  system  adopted  is  not 
sufficiently  comprehensive,  and  does  not  include  all  the 
accounts.  Some  of  them  are  kept  methodically  and  cor- 
rectly, others  amount  to  little  more  than  disconnected 
memoranda;  the  consequence  of  which  is  that  the  books  fail 
to  show  the  exact  results  of  the  business. 

This  may  seem  strange,  but  we  have  only  to  analyze  one 
or  two  of  the  leading  accounts  to  make  it  clear. 

Take,  for  example,  the  Merchandise  account.  The  main 
thing  to  be  learned  from  this  account  is  the  gross  profit 
made  by  the  manufacture  and  sale  of  books  during  the 
year.  To  do  this,  it  is  requisite  that  the  debit  side  of  the 
account  should  show  the  entire  cost  of  the  goods  included 
under  the  head  of  Merchandise,  and  the  credit  side  the 
entire  proceeds  realized  from  their  sale.  Having  these  two 
items,  the  total  cost  and  the  amount  of  sales,  we  have  but 
to  add  to  the  debit  side  of  the  account  the  amount  of  stock 
on  hand-  at  the  beginning  of  the  year,  and  to  the  credit  side 
the  amount  on  hand  at  the  end  of  the  year,  and  the  balance 
then  standing  at  the  credit  of  the  account  will  be  the 
profit  made  on  the  year's  sales. 


SUPPRESSED  REPORT  OP  AN  ACCOUNTANT.    225 

Let  US  see  how  far  the  books,  as  now  kept,  succeed  in 
giving  us  these  facts.  One  great  element  of  cost  in  making 
books  consists  of  wages  paid  to  printers,  book-binders,  etc., 
and  to  authors  for  copyriglits,  and  all  disbursements  for 
these  objects  should  in  some  way  be  debited  to  the  Mer- 
cliandise  account.  The  practice  of  your  accountant  is,  how- 
ever, to  charge  these  disbursements  to  other  accounts,  and 
the  consequence  is,  the  Merchandise  account  shows  at  the 
end  of  the  year  an  amount  of  profit  fictitious  to  an  extent 
just  equal  to  the  amounts  paid  for  the  above  objects. 

Again:  the  item  of  wages,  alluded  to  above,  instead  of 
going  into  its  proper  channel,  finds  its  way  into  an  account 
called  "  Salaries  and  Wages."  This  account  is,  or  should 
be,  purely  an  expense  account,  and  is  properly  chargeable 
with  no  items  except  such  as  are  a  necessary  expense  in 
the  general  management  of  the  business:  by  charging  to 
it,  therefore,  items  that  really  constitute  a  part  of  the  cost 
of  the  goods  in  which  you  deal,  you  show  an  amount  of 
expense  that  is  to  a  large  extent  fictitious. 

Tiie  accounts  with  the  different  periodicals  would  natur- 
ally be  considered  of  great  importance,  but  in  these  the 
books  are  deficient  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  in  the 
accounts  to  wliich  allusion  has  already  been  made.  The 
books  should  show  the  cost,  receipt,  and  profits  of  each 
one  of  the  periodicals  published,  but,  in  reality,  they  give 
us  no  information  whatever  on  either  of  these  points.  The 
cost  of  the  paper  on  which  the  periodicals  are  printed  is 
charged  to  the  Merchandise  account,  and  the  wages  paid 
to  printers,  etc.,  are  charged  to  the  account  of  "  Salaries 
and  Wages,"  while  the  accounts  with  the  subscribers  are 
kept  in  books  entirely  disconnected  from  the  set  which 
should  represent  the  whole  business,  and  in  such  a  way  as 
to  give  us  no  information  as  to  the  amount  of  subscriptions 
received  for  any  one  of  the  periodicals,  or,  indeed,  for  all 
of  them  combined. 

The  accounts  with  the  different  Depositories  also  fail  to 
give  us  the  information  they  should  as  to  the  results  of  the 
business  done  by  them.  The  amount  of  sales,  profits,  and 
expenses  of  each  Depository,  instead  of  appearing  dis- 
tinctly and  by  themselves,  are  merged  into  the  general 
accounts  of  these  items,  which  include  the  business  done 
at  the  Book-room  as  well  as  at  the  different  agencies. 


226    SUPPRESSED  REPORT  OF  AN  ACCOUNTANT. 

The  above  instances  are  probably  sufficient  to  indicate  the 
principal  deficiencies  of  the  method  of  keeping  the  accounts 
now  in  use,  viz.,  that  they  are  not  so  arranged  as,  in  the 
ordinary  routine  of  the  business,  to  gather  the  various 
aggregates  of  the  business  under  proper  heads,  so  as  to 
show  easily,  yet  clearly,  the  exact  results  of  the  business. 

As  I  have  before  remarked,  every  part  of  the  business 
appears  to  be  fully  recorded  in  the  books,  and  it  is  possible, 
by  analyzing  the  accounts,  taking  an  item  here  and  another 
there,  to  make  at  the  end  of  the  year  a  statement  of  the 
results  of  the  business,  but  the  necessity  for  making  this 
analysis  proves  the  incompleteness  of  the  system  used. 
If  the  system  be  a  good  one,  and  well  adapted  to  the  nature 
of  the  business,  every  item  of  disbursement  and  receipt, 
whether  of  expense  or  of  profit,  will  be  classified  and 
appear  under  its  proper  head,  and  at  the  end  of  the  year 
the  profit  and  loss  account  will  show  at  its  debit  the  total 
amount  of  losses  and  expenses,  and  at  its  credit  the  profits 
made,  together  with  the  sources  from  which  they  are 
derived. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  business  of  the 
Book-room  that  would  render  it  at  all  difficult  to  arrange 
the  books  so  as  to  show  these  results,  and  I  will  now 
attempt  to  suggest  a  plan  of  accounts  that  will  meet  the 
requirements  of  the  business  in  this  respect. 

(Then  follows  the  plan  suggesting  the  manner  of  keeping 
accounts  with  the  several  depositories,  printing-office,  bind- 
ery, periodicals,  etc.) 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  report  is  all  about 
the  "  method  or  system  "  of  keeping  the  accounts^ 
After  quoting  the  report,  Mr.  Gunn,  with  his 
usual  moderation,  says: 

I  need  not  add  a  word  concerning  the  book-keeping  prior 
to  the  date  of  that  Report,  except  only  to  say  that,  as  it 
was  not  that  gentleman's  purpose  to  audit  the  accounts, 
but  only  to  examine  the  system  of  book-keeping  employed, 
there  were  some  features  of  the  books  at  that  time  which 
probably  did  not  come  under  his  observation,  and  which 
would   undoubteaiy   have   modified   in   some   measure   his 


SUPPRESSED  REPORT  OF  AN  ACCOUNTANT.    227 

opinion  concerning  the  fullness  of  the  records,  and  the 
possibility  of  making  therefrom  at  the  end  of  the  year 
a  correct  statement  of  the  results  of  the  business. 

The  following  is  from  tlie  report  of  the  Book 
Committee  that  had  been  ordered  to  have  the 
accounts  examined  and  audited.  Journal,  1864, 
page  339: 

In  accordance  with  instructions  given  by  the  last  General 
Conference  to  the  Book  Agents  and  Book  Committee  "  to 
have  the  accounts  of  the  Book  Concern  audited  ";  one  of 
the  most  competent  accountants  in  New  York  was  em- 
ployed, to  whose  inspection  (accompanied  by  one  of  our 
number)  said  accounts  in  all  departments  of  the  "  Concern  " 
were  submitted  without  reserve;  and  who,  after  a  thorough 
investigation,  made  an  able  and  elaborate  report,  in  which 
he  remarks:  "An  examination  such  as  is  proposed  will  be 
of  no  practical  value  unless  it  is  made  thorough  by  tracing 
every  entry  back  to  its  source."  "  It  is  of  course  impossible 
to  say  just  how  much  time  would  be  needed  to  make  the 
examination;  but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  if  the  work 
were  performed  by  an  accountant  sufficiently  master  of  his 
business  to  do  it  well,  it  would  be  a  labor  of  months  to 
examine  and  audit  the  books  of  the  Concern  for  a  single 
year."*  "  The  books  of  the  Concern  appear  to  contain  a  full 
record  of  the  business  in  all  its  departments.  As  far  as 
my  observation  extended,  I  discoA'ered  no  omission  in  re- 
cording every  fact  that  was  necessary  to  a  perfect  under- 
standing of  the  business,  or  to  a  full  statement  of  its 
results."  These  opinions,  reached  after  careful  deliberation, 
harmonizing  with  the  views  of  the  Agents  and  the  Com- 
mittee, they  deemed  it  inexpedient  and  needless  to  push 
the  investigation  further. 

The  remarkable  fact  must  be  noticed,  that 
instead  of  giving  the  whole  report  of  the  account- 
ant, the  above  gives  only  two  and  a  half  senten- 
ces from  it,  and  that  they  are  so  picked  out  as 

♦  Why  were  the  above  quoted  words  italicised  ?  They  were  not  so  in 
the  report. 


228  SUPPRESSED  REPORT  OF  AN  ACCOUNTANT. 

to  separate  them  from  tlieif  connection.  Wliat 
does  that  suggest?  Does  not  the  statement  that 
"It  would  be  a  labor  of  months  to  examine  and 
audit  the  accounts  of  a  single  year,"  coupled  with 
the  additional  statements  that  "Some  of  the 
accounts  are  little  more  than  disconnected  me- 
moranda," and  that  "  it  is  possible,  by  taking  an 
item  here  and  another  there  to  make  out  at  the 
end  of  the  year  a  statement  of  the  results  of  the 
business,"  show  the  absolute  jumble  of  the  ac- 
counts? Could  a  more  chaotic  system  of  book- 
keeping be  imagined?  The  accountant  evidently 
gave  but  little  time  in  examining  the  "system," 
blit  Mr.  Gunn,  as  we  have  seen,  who  spent  fifteen 
months  in  examining  both  the  system  and  the 
correctness  of  the  accx)unts  for  more  than  twelve 
years,  affirais  the  "  impossibility  of  making  there- 
from at  the  end  of  the  year  a  correct  statement 
of  the  results  of  the  business." 

Although  the  accountant,  in  effect,  admits 
that  his  examination  was  not  of  a  kind  to  be  of 
any  practical  value,  he  nevertheless  says,  "The 
books  of  the  Concern  appear  to  contain  a  full 
record  of  the  business  in  all  departments."  1 
have  sometimes  inquired  whether  the  accountant 
put  that  statement  and  the  like  one  given  above 
in  his  rejmrt,  or  whether  it  was  interpolated, 
it  is  so  out  of  harmodiy  A\ith  his  other  state- 
ments about  the  "disconnected  memoranda," 
and  the  necessity  of  "taking  an  item  here  and 
another  there"  to  ascertain  the  yearly  results 
of    the   business.     But   the    Agents    and    Sub- 


SUPPRESSED  REPORT  OF  AN  ACCOUNTANT.  229 

committee  were  so  fiilly  satisfied  "that  they 
deemed  it  inexpedient  to  push,  the  investiga- 
tion further."  If  the  report  had  been  made  to 
the  General  Conference  at  any  other  time  than 
1864,  when  the  nation  was  convulsed  with  war, 
and  when  unusual  attention  was  given  to  the 
same,  I  think  that  body  would  have  "pushed" 
both  Agents  and  Committee  aside  and  appointed 
persons  who  would  have  had  the  accounts  "ex- 
amined and  audited"  by  "tracing  every  entry 
back  to  its  source." 

The  famous  Book  Committee  of  1868  to  1872, 
that  gave  so  much  attention  to  me,  in  their  re- 
port to  the  General  Conference,  speak  thus  of 
the  above  report: 

During  the  year  1862,  in  pursuance  of  an  order  from  the 
General  Conference,  the  books  and  business  methods  of  the 
Concern  were  subjected  to  an  unusually  scrutinizing  ex- 
amination by  a  competent  accountant,  under  the  direction 
of  the  Book  Committee.  ...  In  their  report  to  the  General 
Conference  of  1864,  they  make  special  mention  of  this 
examination  and  precede  it  with  the  following  emphatic 
endorsement:  "  Careful  investigation  has  satisfied  us  that 
the  Agents  in  charge  of  the  Concern  are  interested,  capa- 
ble, and  faithful  men.  Each  successive  year  the  convic- 
tion has  strengthened  that  they  are  the  right  men  in  the 
right  place."  (General  Conference  Journal,  1872.  Page 
590.) 

Is  it  not  fair  to  infer  that  if  the  result  of  the 
"unusually  scrutinizing  examination"  had  suit- 
ed their  policy,  they  would  have  given  the  whole 
report  instead  of  the  two  flattering  sentences 
complimentary  to  the  Agents?  I  am  in  charity 
disposed  to  believe  they  never  saw  the  report. 


230    SUPPRESSED  REPORT  OF  AN  ACCOUNTANT. 

Their  practice  was  to  believe  and  do  whatever 
the  Senior  Agent  told  them,  and  disbelieve  what- 
ever I  laid  before  them,  however  corroborated  by 
incontrovertible  evidence,  and  thus  they  became 
inextricably  involved,  and  were  as  truly  on  trial 
as  the  management  of  the  Book  Concern,  includ- 
ing both  Goodenough  and  Hoffman.  Sad  spec- 
tacle! Painful  to  record.  But  the  truth  must 
be  told  to  silence  men  who  persist  in  misleading 
the  Church. 


ACCOUNTS  AND  FINANCIAL  METHODS. 

In  presenting  further  examples  of  the  financial 
methods,  I  will  show  the  well  nigh  incredible 
character  of  those  methods.  I  have  already 
given  from  Mr.  Gunn's  report  to  Dr.  Carlton,  the 
following,  and  here  repeat  it  to  connect  it  with 
explanatory  facts: 

As  evidence  that  amounts  have  been  carried  to  profit  and 
loss  without  proper  adjustment  and  without  intelligible 
explanation,  I  refer  you  to  the  Depository  accounts,  by 
which  it  appears  that  in  1866  there  was  placed  to  the 
debit  of  profit  and  loss  upon  only  an  estimate  of  probable 
error,  not  after  the  amount  of  error  had  been  definitely 
ascertained,  the  sum  of  $76,528.31,  the  only  explanation 
being  "for  errors  in  Depository  sales";  and  that  in  nearly 
every  successive  year  these  accounts  have  been  closed  "  by 
profit  and  loss  "  for  differences  between  the  books  of  the 
Agents  and  those  of  the  Concern,  not  after,  but  without 
adjustment,  and  without  such  explanation  on  the  books  as 
would  enable  one  not  acquainted  with  the  facts  to  see  the 
propriety  of  the  entry. 

The  only  entry  in  the  books  having  any  relation  to  above 
$76,528.31,  is  m  cash  book  "  Z,"  folio  26,  November  30,  1866, 
as  follows: 

"  Boston  Depository,  amt.  charged  to  P.  &  L. . .  .$45,812.03 

Buffalo  "  "  "  "      22,419.69 

Pittsburgh       "  "  "  '•      8,296.57 


$76,528.31 
Error  in  reporting  monthly  sales  during  the  years  1863, 
1864,  1865  and  1866.    These  amounts  charged  to  Profit  and 
Loss  by  order  of  Agents." 

231 


232  ACCOUxXTS  AND  FINANCIAL  METHODS. 

What  kind  of  financial  metliods  must  they  have 
been  to  allow  such  "  erroi's  "  to  run  through  four 
successive  years?  There  were  no  such  errors  in 
the  Boston  Depository ;  the  agent  was  a  business 
maai  of  marked  exactness,  as  the  following  letter 
from  him  to  Messrs.  Carlton  and  Porter  shows : 

Boston,  Feb.  1,  1867. 
Messrs.  Carlton  &  Porter: 

Dear  Brethren.— Herewith  I  send  statement  of  stock 
account  for  four  years,  in  comparison  with  your  statement 
sent  to  me: 

1863,  December  31. — Merchandise  to  date,  I  allow  more 
$376.29. 

Conference  collections,  $1,011.03,  is  a  mistake.  The  casli 
was  remitted  for  them,  and  not  counted  at  all  in  my  charge 
of  remittances  of  Depository. 

BufTalo  Depository,  $1,500,  all  wrong;  no  such  charge 
should  be  made  to  Boston  Depository. 

CR. 

You  allow  me  cash  more  than  I  charge $65  20 

You  allow  for  books  sent  to  New  York 93  75 

Whereas  it  should  be  $609.19. 

You  do  not  credit  books  to   editors 46  79 

You  do  not  credit  cash  for  freight  on  Repository. .    171  60 
You  do  not  credit  for  freight  on  Cincinnati  books.  .      12  43 

1864.— Merchandise  received  you  charge  $41  more  than 
I  received.  Periodicals,  I  allow  $2,075.04  more  than  you 
charge. 

Collections,  I  paid  all  separately;  no  charge  to  be  made. 

CR. 

I  sent  cash  more  than  allowed $255  53 

I  sent  books  more  than  allowed 268  10 

I  sent  books  to  editors  not  credited 35  50 

Freight  on  Cincinnati  books  not  credited.  .......        36  22 

1865.— You  charged  for  books  received  from  New 
York  more  than  I  received $2,688  06 


ACCOUNTS  AND  FINANCIAL  METHODS.  233 

You  do  not  charge  any  periodicals.    I  acknowl- 
edge     13,805  71 

You  charge  for  collections 405  67 

I  acknowledge   909  28 

CR. 

You  credit  me  cash  more  than  I  sent $576  59 

(This  grows  out  of  collections,  I  presume.) 
You  credit  books  sent  to  New  York  $178.98  less  than  I  sent. 

You  did  not  credit  books  to  editors 45  58 

1866. — You  charge  me  books  sent  $4250  more  than  I  re- 
ceived; which  is  what  I  credit  for  Depository  from  Cincin- 
nati, which  you  do  not  charge. 

Then  you  charge  me  Poe  &  Hitchcock's  account,  which 
is  the  same  thing  over  again. 
You  credit  me  cash  $976.70  more  than  I  sent  on  Depository 

account. 
I  sent  books  $26.88  more  than  credited. 
Freight  on  Cincinnati  books  not  credited,  $40.71. 

Yours  truly,  J.  P.  MAGEE.* 

THE   PERIODICAL   ACCOUNT. 

That  account,  upon  examination,  was  found  to 
have  been  kept  in  such  a  manner  as  to  create 
a  wrong  impression  of  the  condition  of  the  busi- 
ness, and  in  such  a  way"  that  ahnost  any  inter- 
pretation could  be  placed  upon  it. 

The  account  shows  the  following  gains  in  the 
years  as  specified: 

In  1861 $85,973  56 

"  1862 80,959  10 

"   1863 29,522  44 

"   1865 31,527  03 

"  1866 17,933  84 

"  1867 55,025  04 

*  The  aggregate  of  the  above  muddle  is  only  about  $19,456.73,  and 
dops  not  explain  the  $76,528.31  charged  off  for  correction  of  errors. 

But  the  above  is  not  all— the  profit  and  loss  account  shows  that  in 
1868,  $5,262.39  more  was  charged  off  as  a  "  loss  "  to  the  Boston  Deposi- 
tory. 


234  ACCOUNTS  AND  FINANCIAL  METHODS. 

and  losses  in  years  as  follows: 

In  1864 $6,585  82 

"  1868 12,037  38 

The  subscription  list  and  the  advertising  busi- 
ness of  the  periodicals,  during  these  years, 
show  a  marked  uniformity.  No  good  reason  can 
be  given  for  such  variations.  If  the  book-keep- 
ing were  correct  and  honest  they  would  not 
appear. 

From  1863  to  1868  inclusive,  the  following 
table  shows  a  remarkable  discrepancy  between 
the  average  monthly  cash  balances  as  per  cash 
book,  and  the  books  of  the  Shoe  and  Leather 
Bank,  where  the  Book  Concern  deposits  were 
supposed  to  be  kept: 

Average  monthly  cash  balances,  as  per  cash  books: 

1863 $17,088  43 

1864 20,697  00 

1865 12,219  66 

1866    13,605  12 

1867 72,916  03 

1868 87,397  94 

$223,924  18 

Average  monthly  cash  balances  in  bank,  as  per  statement 
of  A.  V.  Stout,  President  Shoe  and  Leather  Bank. 

1863 $23,800  00 

1864 28,400  00 

1865 19,500  00 

1866 27,100  00 

1867 26,400  00 

1868 51,100  00 

$176,300  00 

Aggregate  difference  between  cash  book  and  bank,  $47,- 
624.18. 


ACCOUNTS  AND  FINANCIAL  METHODS.  235 

From  the  account  books  I  ascertained  that, 
notwithstanding  the  above  large  monthly  cash 
balances  during  these  years,  the  Concern  paid 
in  interest,  over  and  above  the  interest  received, 
as  follows: 

1863 $   811  26 

1864 294  12 

1865 583  73 

1866  2,218  40 

1867 1,710  40 

1868 1,314  04 


$6,932  15 


I  shall  be  able  to  show  that  large  sums  of  the 
Church's  money,  instead  of  being  in  the  Shoe  and 
Leather  Bank  to  the  credit  of  the  Book  Concern 
and  the  Missionary  Society,  were  in  Dr.  Carlton's 
personal  and  private  account.  Whether  he  "  de- 
rived incidental  benefit,"  I  shall  leave  the  reader 
to  judge  from  tiie  facts  given. 

But  there  is  another  collateral  fact  to  which 
attention  must  be  called.  When  we  moved  the 
store  and  offices  from  the  old  building,  200 
Mulberry  Street,  to  the  new  one,  805  Broad- 
way, Dr.  Carlton  and  myself  left  our  old  desks 
at  the  former.  As  the  manufacturing  depart- 
ment remained  at  200  Mulberry  Street,  my  duties 
called  me  there  almost  every  day.  Dr.  Carlton's 
old  desk  being  more  conveniently  located  than 
mine,  I  had  occasion  to  use  it,  and  found  in 
it  a  check  book  and  a  large  number  of  can- 
celled checks,  representing  large  sums  of  money. 
Upon  examination,  I  found  that  many  of  the 


286  ACCOUNTS  AND  FINANCIAL  METHODS. 

checks  were  in  favor  of  "Carlton  and  Porter," 
and  others  in  favor  of  "Carlton  and  Laua- 
lian,"  thus  showini*'  conneiolio'n  with  tiie  liooiv 
Concern.  For  obvious  reasons,  after  consult- 
ing several  friends,  and  upon  legal  advice, 
I  took  charge  of  them,  hoping  for  an  occasion 
when  I  could  get  an  honest  examination,  which 
I  certainly  should  have  gotten  if  the  Carlton- 
Goodenough  suit  had  come  to  trial.  In  view  of 
my  painful  experience  with  the  Book  Committee 
I  could  not  trust  them  in  their  hands.  They 
would  have  referred  them  to  Dr.  Carlton,  and 
a  few  remarks  from  him  would  have  satisfied 
them.  I  exhibited  them  to  some  of  the  most 
prominent  ministers  and  laymen,  who  exi)ressed 
the  opinion  that  they  furnished  probable  evi- 
dence of  an  improper  use  of  the  money  of  the 
Church.  I  hoped  to  have  an  opportunity  to  pre- 
sent them  to  a  committee  which  I  knew  would 
have  to  be  appointed  at  the  approaching  Gen- 
eral Conference,  to  examine  my  charges  of  mis- 
management and  frauds.  When  the  General 
Conference  met  such  a  committee  was  appointed, 
but,  strangely,  I  was  not  permitted  to  appear 
before  it,  nor  before  any  member  of  it,  to  prove 
even  the  charges  embodied  in  my  printed  report 
which  had  been  referred  to  it,  although  Dr.  Carl- 
ton, Mr.  J.  P.  Kilbreth,  Goodenough  and  the 
like,  were  in  constant  communication  with  some 
of  them.  Thus  the  checks  have  remained  in  my 
hands  unexamined,  and  I  now  make  them  a  part 
of  this  narrative,  hoping  that  even  at  this  late 


ACCOirNTS  AND  FINANCIAL  METHODS.  237 

cla}^  I  may  secure  au  exaiiiiuatiou  not  only  of 
them,  but  also  of  other  closely  related  matters  of 
great  magnitude. 

It  is  proper  to  state  that  during  my  four  years 
in  the  Book  Concern  as  one  of  its  Agents,  I 
heard  no  more  of  the  finances  than  if  I  had  no 
connection  with  it.  I  never  drew  a  check  nor  han- 
dled a  dollar.  Dr.  Carlton  had  the  sole  man- 
agement of  the  monetary  affairs,  not  only  of  the 
Book  Concern,  but  also  of  all  moneys  that  came 
there  for  the  various  connectional  interests  of 
the  Church.  He  was  also  Treasurer  of  tlie  Mis- 
sionary Society.  Many  of  the  checks  are  to  him- 
self as  Ti-easurer.  The  following  is  a  statement 
of  the  amounts  drawn  out  of  his  personal  account 
in  the  "Shoe  and  Leatlier  Bank,"  as  per  check 
book  and  checks.  He  also  appears  to  have  had 
deposits  elsewhere. 

1862. 

According  to  the  check  book  and  checks,  he 
drew  out  of  his  personal  and  private  account 
in  the  Shoe  and  Leather  Bank  $99,181.78,  in 
amounts  ranging  from  |5,000  to  |20,000  at  a 
time.  All  my  statements  of  the  frauds  com- 
mitted were  so  constantly  and  persistently  de- 
nied, and  attempts  made  to  explain  away  facts, 
that  I  deem  it  proper  to  give  a  few  sample  copies 
of  the  checks: 

New  York,  January  20,  1862. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Missionary  Society,  Twenty-Six  Hun- 
dred and  Twenty-Four  Dollars. 

$2,624.00.  THOS.  CARLTON. 


238  ACCOUNTS  AND  FINANCIAL  METHODS. 

Strange  to  say  this  check  has  no  endorsement, 
but,  I  judge  it  was  credited  to  T.  Carlton,  Treas- 
urer. 

New  York,  April  5,  1862. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  the  order  of  the  Missionary  Society,  Fifty-Seven 
Hundred  and  Twenty-Seven  Dollars  and  Thirty-two  Cents. 
$5,727.32.  THOS.  CARLTON. 

Endorsed  "  C.  &  P."  and  "  T.  O.  Treas." 

Many  of  these  checks  endorsed  "C.  &  P."  ap- 
pear to  have  been  deposits  to  Carlton  and  Por- 
ter's credit,  but  in  the  above  case,  "  C.  P."  &  "  T. 
C.  Treasurer,"  added,  may  mean  that  it  was 
deposited  to  the  credit  of  T.  Carlton,  Treasurer, 
and  that  although  the  money  was  drawn  from 
T.  Carlton's  personal  account,  it  was  the  pro- 
perty of  the  Book  Concern.  Nothing  but  an  ex- 
amination can  explain  these  singular  matters. 

New  York,  April  26,  1862. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Shoe  and  Leather  Bank,  Twelve 
Thousand,  One  Hundred  and  Fifty-Eight  Dollars. 

$12,158.00.  THOS.  CARLTON. 

The  endorsement  shows  that  it  was  in  payment 
for  purchase  of  certificate  of  stock. 

Aiiother  check  is  to  E.  Green,  Ext.  for  $12,300, 
and  another  for  $5,000,  payable  to  T.  Carlton, 
Treasurer,  &c.,  &c. 

Another  is  to  "D.  Devlin,  City  Chamberlain," 
for  $20,000. 

1863. 

The  amount  drawn  was  $67,668.11,  in  checks 
of  $5,000,   $10,000,   $20,000,   &c.    Some   of  the 


ACCOUNTS  AND  FINANCIAL  METHODS.  239 

cliecks  are  in  favor  of  Carlton  and  Porter,  T. 
Carlton,  Treasni-^r,  and  some  to  Chas.  T.  Carl- 
ton, his  son.  The  following  is  a  copy  of  one  of 
these  checks: 

New  York,  March  2,  1863. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Thos.  Carlton,  Treasurer,  Five 
Thousand  Dollars. 

$5,000.  THOS.  CARLTON. 

The  endorsement  is,  "Pay  to  Daniel  Denham, 
Jr.  or  order,  Thos.  Carlton,  Treasurer."  Under 
that  endorsement  is  the  following:  "Daniel 
Denham,  Jr." 

Daniel  Denham,  Jr.,  was  brother-in-law  to 
Thos.  Carlton  and  cashier  of  the  Book  Concern, 
and  is  in  that  position  yet.  Did  he  receive  the 
above  from  the  Missionary  Treasurer? 

Another  check  for  |1,077.50  to  Daniel  Denham, 
Jr.,  is  endorsed,  "Daniel  Denham,  Jr.,  C.  &  P." 
The  initials  "  C.  &  P."  suggest  that  it  may  have 
been  deposited  to  the  credit  of  Carlton  and  Por- 
ter, Agents,  of  the  Book  Concern.  But  some  of 
the  checks  to  "  S.  J.  Goodenough "  are  endorsed 
with  his  name,  and  the  initials  "  C.  &  P."  added, 
whilst  the  notes  on  the  stubs  of  the  check  book 
show  that  they  related  to  matters  connected 
with  the  great  Petroleum  Oil  Companies  of  the 
Book  Concern. 

1864 

The  amount  drawn  was  |23,874.05,  in  favor  of 
Qirlton  and  Porter,  Thos.  Carlton,  Treasurer, 
and  others. 

*  Daniel  Denham,  Jr.,  brother  iu  law  of  Thos.  Carlton,  was 
then  and  is  now  cashier  of  the  Book  Concern.  Why  should 
he  have  received  S5000.00  out  of  the  Missionary  Treasury  ? 


240  ACCOTINTS   AND   FINANCIAL    METHODS. 

1865. 

The  amount  drawn  was  |434,432.20.  The  fol- 
lowing are  copies  of  some  of  the  checks: 

New  York,  February  8,  18G5. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay    to    the    order  of    T.    Carlton,    Treasurer,    Twenty 
Thousand  Dollars. 
$20,000.  THOS.   CARLTON. 

Endorsed  by  "Thos.  Carlton,  Treasurer." 

New  York,  April  11,  18G5. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  Mangaiu,  Jenkins  &  Co.,  or  order.  Fifty  Thous- 
and, Nine  Hundred  and  Forty-Nine  Dollars  and  Seventy- 
five  Cents. 
$50,949.75.  THOS.   CARLTON. 

Endoi'sed   "  Mangam,   Jenkins   &   Co." 

April  26th  |11,15T.54  was  made  payable  to 
the  same  parties,  and  endorsed  by  them.  The 
next  day  |10,962.75  was  drawn  to  the  same  flrni 
and  endorsed  by  them,  making  in  all  |73,070.04 
paid  to  Mangam,  Jenkins  &  Co.,  Stockbrokers,  in 
sixteen  days.  Witli  the  above  $20,000,  and  one 
of  |6,000,  to  T.  Carlton,  Treasurer,  not  previously 
mentioned,  the  checks  show  tliat  |99,000  were 
withdrawn  from  his  personal  and  private  ac- 
count in  a  few  weeks. 

The  above  w^ere  followed  by  other  checks  in 
favor  of  Carlton  and  Porter,  aggregating  |23,500 
in  ten  days,  all  of  which  were  endorsed  "  Carlton 
and  Porter." 

Next  comes  the  following: 


ACCOUNTS   AND   FINANCIAL   METHODS.  241 

New  York,  July  13,  1865. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  the  order  of  H.  A.  Heiser  &  Sons,  Twenty  Thous- 
and, One  Hundred  and  Forty-Five  Dollars  and  Forty-eight 
Cents. 
$20,145.48.  THOS.  CARLTON. 

Endorsed  "  H.  A.  Heiser  &  Sons." 

In  tlie  meantime,  checks  to  S.  J.  Goodenougli, 
amounting  to  |3,700  were  drawn.  They  appear 
to  have  been  given  in  connection  witli  the  Oil 
Companies  heretofore  mentioned. 

These  were  followed  by  several  checks  to  Carl- 
ton and  Porter,  aggregating  $24,500  in  a  few 
days. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  a  check  drawn: 

New  York,  September  14,  1865. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 


Pay  to  the  order  of 

Fifty-Seven  Hundred  and  Sixty  Dollars. 
$5,760.00.  THOS.  CARLTON. 

On  the  back  of  the  check,  in  pencil,  are  "  C.  & 
P."  "C."  The  name  of  the  payee  is  not  given. 
The  bank's  cancellation  shows,  however,  that  it 
was  paid,  but  to  whom  is  not  stated. 

Others  of  the  checks  are  to  Carlton  and  Porter, 
T.  Carlton,  Treasurer,  &c. 

The  following  appears: 

New  York,  October  18,  1865. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Charles  T.  Carlton,  Fifty  Thousand 
Dollars. 

$50,000.00.  THOS.  CARLTON. 

This  is  followed  three  days  later  by  two  others 
of  15,000  and  |25,000;  and  these  ten  days  after, 


242  ACCOUNTS   AND   FINANCIAL   METHODS. 

by  one  of  $10,000,  and  another  of  |20,000,  aU 
drawn  in  favor  of  his  son,  Charles  T.  Carlton,  the 
whole  aggregating  $110,000  in  a  period  of  thir- 
teen days.  All  of  these  checks  are  endorsed 
"  Charles  T.  Carlton." 
Another  check  reads: 

New  York,  October  21,  1865. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  Henry  A.  Heiser  &  Sons,  or  order,  Forty-Two 
Thousand  Dollars. 

$42,000.00.  THOS.  CARLTON. 

Endorsed  by  Henry  A.  Heiser  &  Sons. 

The  aggi'egate  of  these  checks  shows  that 
$152,000  was  drawn  out  of  his  personal  account 
in  less  than  two  weeks. 

The  above  are  followed  by  numerous  checks 
of  $5,000  and  $10,000,  drawn  to  T.  Carlton,  Treas- 
urer, and  Carlton  and  Porter,  and  also  by  one  of 
$1,000  in  favor  of  John  E.  Stevens,  his  nephew, 
September  8,  1865,  endorsed  "Jno.  E.  Stevens," 
with  the  initials  "  C.  &  P."  directly  underneath, 
in  the  handwriting  of  T.  Carlton,  indicating  that 
though  the  amount  originally  was  drawn  from 
Thos.  Carlton's  private  account,  that  in  some 
way  the  money  would  come  ultimately  from  the 
funds  of  the  Book  Concern. 

1866. 

The  amount  drawn  according  to  check  book 
and  checks,  was  $125,402,90,  to  different  persons, 
Carlton  and  Porter,  Thos.  Carlton,  Treasurer,  &c. 

A  stub  of  the  check  book  shows  the  following 
entry: 

"■■  Tlie  son  was  a  speculator  in  stocks.  When  cut  off  from 
supplies  of  church  money  by  my  investigation,  he  robbed 
the  company  of  which  he  was  secretary  and  fled  to  South 
America  where  he  died. 


ACCOUNTS  AND  FINANCIAL   METHODS.  243 

"Carlton  and  Porter,  $45,000"  (without  date). 
There  is  no  check  among  those  in  my  possession 
of  that  amount,  but  there  are  the  following 
checks : 

New  York,  July  20,  1866. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  the  order  of  Thos.  Carlton,  Treasurer,   Fifteen 
Thousand  Dollars. 
$15,000.00.  THOS.  CARLTON. 

Endorsed  "  For  Deposit,  T.  Carlton,  Treasurer." 

Of  the  same  date,  one  for  |10,000  to  T.  Carlton, 
Treasurer;  another  on  July  26,  for  |10,000  to  T. 
Carlton,  Treasui-er;  and  one  on  July  20,  for 
110,000  to  Carlton  and  Porter.  These  aggregate 
$45,000,  and  seem  to  answer  to  the  memorandum 
in  check  book  referred  to  above,  only,  however, 
as  to  amount.  Nothing  less  than  an  examina- 
tion can  explain  it.  Why  should  the  Senior 
Agent  be  constantly  paying  such  large  sums  to 
Carlton  and  Porter,  and  to  T.  Carlton,  Treasurer? 

The  check  book  shows  that  Dr.  Carlton  fre- 
quently made  deposits  of  interest  in  his  personal 
account  in  sums  ranging  from  $100  to  $1,800. 
The  following  is  a  copy  of  one  of  his  checks : 

New  York,  December  29,  1863. 
Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

Pay  to  error  in  interest,  One  Hundred  and  Sixty-One 
Dollars  and  Sixty-two  Cents. 

$161.62.  THOS.  CARLTON. 

The  note  on  the  stub  of  the  check  book  is: 
"Error  in  interest  in  Shoe  and  Leather  Bank, 
$161.62."  The  above  looks  as  if  it  was  the  return 
of  overpaid  interest. 


244  ACCOUMTS   AND   FINANCIAL    METHODS. 

The  check  book  shows  that  Dr.  Carlton  kept 
large  deposits  in  his  personal  account  in  bank 
of  bonds  and  United  States  certificates;  thus, 
at  one  time  |50,000,  at  another,  United  States 
certificates  for  |50,000;  at  another  time,  |40,000. 

If  the  above  was  his  property,  the  deposit  in 
his  personal  account  was  proper.  If  it  was  the 
property  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
should  it  not  have  been  deposited  to  the  credit 
of  Carlton  and  Porter,  or  to  Thos.  Carlton,  Treas- 
urer? The  facts  caimotHbe  known  without  a 
careful  examination.  I  used  every  possible 
means  to  secure  such  examination  but  failed, 
because  Dr.  Carlton,  Ms  Book  Committee,  and 
Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher  opposed  me.  If  Dr.  C.  C. 
McCabe  will  give  the  weight  of  his  great  influ- 
ence to  secure  an  examination  it  can  soon  be 
ascertained  whether  he  was,  or  was  not,  mis- 
taken when  he  confidently  declared  on  the  floor 
of  the  last  General  Conference  that  "  the  Church 
never  lost  a  dollar  by  any  one  of  its  Agents." 

But  the  above  is  not  all.  Having  learned  that 
Dr.  Carlton  had  large  deposits  in  the  Sub-treas- 
ury, at  New  York,  I  applied  to  the  Sub-treasurer, 
who  stated  that  he  was  not  allowed  to  give  any 
information  in  regard  to  deposits.  Being  inti- 
mately acquainted  with  President  U.  S.  Grant, 
I  went  to  Washington,  and  found  that  he  was 
much  interested  in  the  Book  Concern  contro- 
versy. After  hearing  a  brief  statement,  he  gave 
me  a  letter  to  Hon.  Geo.  W.  Boutwell,  Secretary 
of  the  United  States  Treasury,  who  gave  me  an 


ACCOUNTS   AND   FINANCIAL   METHODS.  245 

order  on  the  Sub-treasurer,  at  New  York,  from 
whom  I  received  a  tabulated  statement  of  the 
deposits  of  "Thomas  Carlton,  Treasurer,"  show- 
ing "date  of  deposit,  amount,  interest,  when 
paid,  and  number  of  certificate."  That  statement 
lies  before  me  as  I  write.  In  1863,  the  amount 
was  150,000,  in  1864  the  amount  was  |140,000; 
in  1865  the  amount  was  |75,000. 

In  a  recent  correspondence  with  the  present 
treasurer,  Dr.  H.  Eaton,  I  was  informed  that  no 
record  of  these  loans  of  the  Society's  money  was 
found  "though  diligent  search  has  been  made." 

1867. 

The  amount  drawn  was  |38,410.0 )  to  Carlton 
and  Porter,  one  to  Thos.  Carlton,  Treasurer,  for 
115,000,  etc. 

The  bills  receivable  account  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern, a  copy  of  wliich  now  lies  before  me,  has  this 
entry:  "November  30,  1867,  T.  Carlton,  Treas- 
urer, 145,000,  paid."  Nothing  is  said  as  to  when 
or  where  it  was  to  be  paid. 

If  the  above  |45,000  is  the  same  transaction  as 
that  of  1866,  noticed  above,  it  looks  as  if  T.  Carl- 
ton had  had  that  amount  in  his  private  account 
nearly  a  year  before  it  was  entered  in  the  "Bills 
Eeceivable"  account,  or  paid,  and  that  he  may 
have  borrowed  it  from  Carlton  and  Porter,  in 
the  name  of  "T.  Carlton,  Treasurer,"  when  it 
was  for  his  own  personal  use. 


246  ACCOUNTS   AND   FINANCIAL    METHODS. 

1868. 

The  checks  are  to  Thos.  Carlton,  Treasurer, 
and  Carlton  and  Lanahan.  The  amount  is  com- 
paratively small,  and  the  checks  are  from  a  check 
book  different  from  that  in  my  possession. 

At  one  of  the  meetings  of  the  Book  Committee, 
Kev.  James  Pike  raised  the  question  whether  the 
Book  Concern  ought  not  to  receive  interest  on 
its  large  balances  in  bank.  The  day  following. 
Dr.  Carlton  presented  to  the  Committee  a  letter, 
a  copy  of  which  is  now  lying  before  me,  from  Mr. 
A.  V.  Stout,  President  of  the  Shoe  and  Leather 
Bank,  of  date,  November  6,  1869,  in  which  he 
says:  "We  never  have,  and  do  not  now  allow 
interest  on  individual  or  corporate  accounts  ex- 
cept banks,  and  in  the  case  of  banks,  the  deposits 
are  always  large."  I  shall  show  that  Mr.  Stout's 
statement  was  incorrect. 

When  my  mandamus  suit  was  pending  in  court 
the  following  aflftdavit  was  presented  in  reference 
to  the  accounts  in  the  Shoe  and  Leather  Bank: 

AFFIDAVIT  OF  MR.  KISSAM. 

City  and  County  of  New  York,  ss.: 

William  A.  Kissam,  being  duly  sworn,  says:  I  was 
Cashier  of  the  Shoe  and  Leather  Bank  from  its  organiza- 
tion in  1853  to  the  31st  of  January,  1866.  I  knew  Thos. 
Carlton  during  the  most  or  all  of  this  time.  Thomas  Carl- 
ton was,  as  I  understood,  one  of  the  Agents  of  the  Metho- 
dist Book  Concern,  in  the  city  of  New  York.  A  Mr.  Phil- 
lips was  his  associate  during  a  portion  of  this  time,  and 
Dr.  Porter  during  the  remainder.  In  or  about  1853  or 
1854  an  account  was  opened  with  the  Shoe  and  Leather 
Bank  in  the  name  of  Carlson  and  Phillips.    Afterward  this 


ACCOUNTS   AND   FINANCIAL   METHODS.  247 

account  stood  in  the  name  of  Carlton  and  Porter.  I  al- 
ways understood  that  they  were  the  representatives  of 
the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  and  that  these  accounts  were 
in  fact  the  accounts  of  said  Book  Concern. 

There  was  also  an  account  kept  in  the  name  of  Thomas 
Carlton,  Treasurer,  but  1  do  not  recollect  when  that  account 
was  opened.  The  said  account  was  still  open  when  I  left 
the  bank.  I  do  not  know  that  Thomas  Cai'lton  was  inter- 
ested in  any  other  account,  unless  he  had  a  private  ac- 
count there,  of  which  I  cannot  speak  positively.  The  bank 
allowed  Thomas  Carlton,  Treasurer,  interest  on  his  aver- 
age balances.  Those  balances  were  at  times  considerable 
amounts.  The  rate  of  interest  allowed  was  4  per  cent., 
and  sometimes  5.  This  interest  was  paid  by  giving  a 
cashier  check  to  the  order  of  Mr.  Carlton,  Treasurer. 
These  checks  would  be  entered  first  to  the  credit  of  the 
cashier's  account,  and  when  paid  would  be  debited  to  the 
same  account.  They  would  not  be  entered  by  the  bank  on 
the  account  of  Thomas  Carlton,  Treasurer,  and  the  books 
would  not  show  that  any  interest  had  ever  been  paid. 
The  cashier  account  would  show  that  those  interest 
checks  were  given  and  paid;  but  would  not  show  what 
they  were  given  for,  but  the  exchange  and  interest  account 
I  think  will  show  a  debit  of  a  corresponding  amount.  Mr. 
Stout,  the  President  of  the  Bank,  authorized  the  payment 
of  the  interest  in  the  first  instance,  and  it  continued  to  be 
paid  by  me  under  that  authority.  The  Shoe  and  Leather 
Bank,  during  the  period  of  my  connection  with  it,  was  in 
the  habit  of  paying  interest  at  the  rate  of  4  per  cent, 
upon  accounts  where  large  balances  were  kept. 

W.  A.  KISSAM. 

Sworn  to  before  me,  this  30th  day  of  May,  1871. 

JOSEPH  J.  BOSWORTH,  JR.,  Referee. 

After  the  publication  of  the  above  affidavit, 
the  Finance  Committee  of  the  Board  of  Mana- 
gers of  the  Missionary  Society,  investigated  it, 
and  made  a  report  to  the  Board,  which  took  the 
following  action: 

Resolved,  That  this  Board  is  gratified  to  find,  after  a 
full  and  careful  examination  of  the  case,  that  the  allega- 


248  ACCOUNTS    AND   FINANCIAL    METHODS. 

tiou  of  Mr.  Kissam,  former  cashier  of  the  Shoe  and 
Leather  Bank,  affecting  the  integrity  of  the  Treasurer 
of  the  Missionary  Society  is  not  supported  in  any  degree 
by  the  facts  developed  in  the  investigation. 

Pending  tlie  consideration  of  tlie  second  part  of  the 
report,  it  was  amended  so  that  the  first  paragraph  should 
read  as  follows:  The  Committee  further  report,  that  ex- 
cept as  hereinafter  stated,  no  record  appears  upon  the 
books  of  the  Society  of  the  loan  by  the  Treasurer  of  the 
$50,000,  which  was  returned  to  him  and  loaned  again  on 
the  3d  day  of  November,  1863;  and  other  temporary  loans 
made  by  him  are  not  recorded  in  the  permanent  books  of 
the  Society.  The  report  as  thus  amended,  including  the 
following  Resolution,  was  then  adopted. 

Resolved,  That  the  Treasurer  of  this  Society  be  and 
hereby  is  directed  to  keep  separate  books  of  account  in 
permanent  form  for  all  receipts  and  disbursements  of  the 
same,  including  loans,  interest  and  discounts,  and  to  make 
the  bank  the  only  depository  of  such  funds  as  may  come 
into  his  hands. 

I  go  into  no  criticism  on  the  above,  but  tlie 
reader  will  please  note  Mr.  Kissani's  language, 
in  regard  to  the  checks:  "They  would  not  be 
entered  by  the  bank  on  the  account  of  Thomas 
Oarlton,  Treasurer,  and  the  books  would  not 
show  that  any  interest  had  been  paid,"  etc.,  etc. 

This  same  Committee  in  a  report  to  the  Board, 
June  16,  1871,  confirm  Mr.  Kissam's  statement, 
as  to  interest,  in  saying  that  they  found  in  the 
ledger,  running  from  June,  1863  to  November  1, 
1864,  a  check  for  interest,  amounting  to  |969.86, 
and  further  report: 

It  appears  by  the  credit  books  of  the  bank,  that  on  the 
same  day  as  the  Cashier's  check  for  $969.86,  bearing  date 
November  3,  1863,  the  Treasurer  received  from  the  bank 
four  certificates  of  deposit,  amounting  to  the  sum  of  $50,000, 
for  which  no  check  was  drawn,  and  no  entry  made  in  the 
check-book,  or  other  books  of  the  Society;  nor  could  the 


ACCOUNTS   AND   FINANCIAI.   METHODS.  249 

Treasurer,  or  his  Cashier,  inform  the  Committee  where  the 
$50,000  came  from,  nor  had  they  any  record  of  it.  The 
Treasurer  stated  that  the  account  of  loans  of  the  Society's 
money  has  been  kept  in  small  memoranda  books,  which 
have  been  mislaid  or  destroyed. 

Is  there  a  secular  corporation  in  tlie  whole 
country  tliat  would  have  retained  the  treasurer 
a  isingle  day  after  so  puerile  an  excuse  of  the  use 
he  had  made  of  the  Society's  money?  "Small 
memoranda  books  "  were  convenient  thinji^s  to  be 
"mislaid  or  destroyed"  when  an  item  of  |50,000 
Tvas  to  be  accounted  for!  But  no  chanjije  was 
made  in  the  use  of  small  memoranda  books. 

According  to  the  check  book  and  checks,  the 
Senior  Agent  drew  out  of  his  personal  and  pri- 
vate account,  in  the  Shoe  and  Leather  Bank, 
from  1862  to  1867,  |773,114.49.  He  also  appears 
to  have  had  dex>osits  elsewhere.  The  checks 
show  that  instead  of  depositing  the  funds  of  the 
Book  Concern  to  the  credit  of  the  Agents,  Carl- 
ton and  Porter,  and  after  my  election,  to  Carl- 
ton and  Lanahan,  and  those  of  the  Missionary 
Society,  to  Thos.  Carlton,  Treasurer,  he  kept 
large  amounts  of  those  funds  in  his  personal  ac- 
count, and  from  time  to  time  checked  out  of  that 
account  into  the  official  accounts,  and  thus  kept 
up  a  balance  in  the  latter.  The  above  facts 
show  extraordinary  financial  methods.  But  Mr. 
Kilbretli,  in  his  report  to  the  Book  Committee — 
which  report  the  Committee  presented  to  the 
General  Conference  of  1872,  with  much  lauda- 
tion— says,  he  does  "not  see  how  they  coidd  be 
improved." 


SUIT  FOR  SLANDER. 

January  lltli,  1870,  I  received  notice  of  a  Suit 
for  Slander  and  Libel,  damage  laid  at  |20,000, 
by  S.  J.  Goodenougli,  whom  I  bad  charged  with 
defrauding  the  Book  Concern.  Unpleasant  as  it 
was  to  be  dragged  into  a  civil  court,  knowing 
that  the  ofl&cial  and  financial  power  of  the  Book 
Concern  would  be  employed  against  me,  I  never- 
theless welcomed  the  suit,  as  I  had  welcomed 
the  charges,  hoping  for  an  opportunity  to  prove 
more  tlian  1  had  alleged.  The  suit  and  the  char- 
ges were  gotten  up  in  the  Book  C/oncem.  Goode- 
nough  himself  had  said  to  a  friend  that  he  "  did 
not  want  to  bring  the  suit,"  but  that  he  had  been 
"  pushed  to  do  it  by  a  person  high  in  the  Book 
Concern."  He  might  well  have  not  wanted  to 
do  it,  as  he  knew  what  his  conduct  had  been, 
better  even  than  I  knew  it. 

At  the  outset  of  the  Book  Room  troubles,  the 
venerable  Dr.  D.  D.  Whedon,  Editor  of  the 
Methodist  Quarterly  Review,  said  to  me:  "The 
bottom  of  the  troubles  will  never  be  reached, 
except  through  a  civil  court — they  will  spend 
1100,000  to  prevent  investigation."  That  vener- 
able and  distinguished  man  had  been  in  the  Con- 
cern long  before  I  went  there,  and  although  his 
hearing  was  not  distinct,  he  had  eyes  to  see  and 
a  most  acute  intuition. 

'250 


SUIT  FOR  SLANDER.  251 

Immediately  upon  notice  of  the  suit,  I  employ- 
ed one  of  the  most  vigorous  legal  firms  in  New- 
York,  Messrs.  Brown,  Hall  and  Vanderpool,  and 
handed  them  a  retaiuer  of  |500,  telling  them  I 
had  no  fear  of  the  result.  Of  course,  I  had  no 
control  of  the  case  after  putting  it  in  their  hands, 
but  I  frequently  requested  them  to  bring  it  to 
trial  as  soon  as  possible.  Believing  that  to  per- 
severe in  duty  and  be  silent  is  the  best  answer 
to  calumny,  I  said  nothing  about  the  suit,  except 
to  my  attorneys,  and  went  on  about  my  duties  as 
though  nothing  had  happened,  accumulating  new 
facts  of  frauds,  and  additional  evidence  to  meet 
the  suit.  The  Ohristian  Advocate,  however,  true 
to  its  purpose,  found  in  the  suit  fresh  material 
for  renewed  attacks  upon  me.  My  attorneys  did 
not  file  my  answer  soon  enough  to  satisfy  the 
Advocate,  and  it  sought  to  make  the  impression 
upon  the  public  that  I  was  evading  the  issue. 
The  following  is  one  of  its  bulletins: 

The  Suit  against  Dr.  Lanahan. — In  response  to  the  numer- 
ous inquiries  concerning  the  suit  instituted  by  Mr.  S.  J. 
Goodenough  against  Dr.  Lanahan,  it  may  be  proper  for 
us  to  state  that,  according  to  legal  usage,  the  defendant 
was  allowed  twenty  days  in  which  to  file  his  answer  to 
the  complaint.  At  the  expiration  of  that  time  the  defend- 
ant's counsel  (Messrs.  Brown,  Hall  and  Vanderpool,  our 
present  city  Mayor,  Hon.  A.  Oakey  Hall,  being  a  member 
of  the  firm)  applied  for  a  further  extension  of  twenty  days. 
This  was  granted.  When  this  time  expired,  the  same 
counsel  urged  a  still  further  extension  of  time  in  which  to 
file  their  answer,  and  an  additional  period  of  thui:y  days 
was  allowed.  The  last  extension  bears  date  from  the  20th 
of  July.    Of  the  reasons  for  the  delay  we  are  not  advised. 


252  SUIT   FOR  SLANDER. 

Chief  among  the  "numerous"  inquirers  was 
the  writer  of  the  above,  the  Rev.  W.  H.  DePuy, 
assistant  editor,  who  during  all  those  troubles 
was  the  convenient  go-between  for  the  defraud- 
ers  and  their  allies.  He  was  always  on  hand 
when  any  peculiar  work  was  to  be  done.  His  man- 
ner was  soft  as  tlie  black  velvet  which  Hoffman 
used  to  purchase  at  |20  ])er  yard,  and  his  move- 
ments as  noiseless  as  if  his  feet  were  shod  with 
wool.  His  name  as  a  witness  was  in  the  plaintiff's 
complaint.  Several  times  well-meaning,  but  mis- 
led friends,  came  direct  from  him  to  tell  me  Avhat 
dreadful  things  he  would  swear  to,  and,  as 
friends,  advised  me  to  resign.  I  made  but  one 
reply,  "Perjury  in  a  civil  court  is  more  danger- 
ous than  falsehoods  before  a  Book  Committee." 

At  last  my  busy  counsel  found  time  to  file  my 
answer.  After  denying  the  trashy  fictions  to 
which  W.  H.  DePuy  professed  a  willingness  to 
swear,  I  directly  charged  S.  J.  Goodenougli  with 
dishonesty,  in  the  payment  of  wages  and  the 
purchase  of  paper,  and  that  in  the  latter,  J.  F. 
Porter  was  used  as  a  go-between. 


FIFTH  MEETING. 

Goodenoiigli's  suit  was  being  pressed,  iu  ap- 
pearance at  least,  and  liaving  in  my  possession 
wliat  I  believed  to  be  evidence  tbat  the  money 
of  the  Church  had  been  fraudulently  used  in  the 
immense  Oil  Companies  that  had  been  organized 
and  carried  on  in  the  Book  Concern  by  Dr.  Carl- 
ton, Goodenough  and  other  employees,  and  that 
an  examination  of  the  bank  books  and  vouchers 
would  furnish  facts,  additional  to  what  I  already 
possessed,  of  Goodenough's  frauds,  I  applied 
to  Dr.  Carlton  for  said  books  and  vouchers.  He 
refused  access  to  them,  and  quoted  a  resolution 
adopted  by  the  Book  Committee,  "that  no  fur- 
ther examination  should  be  made,"  and  said: 
"The  Committee  is  the  General  Conference  in 
its  absence."  I  replied,  that  the  General  Confer- 
ence had  authorized  the  Committee  to  do  certain 
specified  things,  as  it  had  the  Agents,  and  for 
the  Committee  to  deny  me  access  to  books  and 
papers  for  the  correctness  of  which  I,  in  part, 
was  responsible,  was  not  only  an  assumption  of 
authority  which  did  not  belong  to  them,  but 
something  worse — a  desire  to  conceal  the  wrongs 
that  had  been  committed  on  the  honor  and  pro- 
perty of  the  Church.  This  was  called,  in  one  of 
the  charge  preferred  against  me,  "Insubordina- 
tion to  the  Committee." 

253 


254  FIFTH  MEETING. 

He  then  brouglit  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher,  his  very- 
convenient  helper,  who  insisted  that  the  Com- 
mittee had  the  right  to  deny  me  access  to  the 
books.  Subsequently,  I  renewed  my  application 
through  Judge  Keynolds  and  Dr.  J.  M.  Buckley, 
now  editor  of  the  Christian  Advocate,  with  the 
same  result.  I  then  requested  my  attorneys  to 
apply  to  the  court  for  a  mandamus.  Dr.  Carlton, 
who  engineered  tlie  former  charges  against  me, 
was  now  forced  to  show  his  hand,  and  he  pre- 
ferred charges  in  his  own  name.  Learning  that 
he  was  taking  measures  to  have  the  Book 
Committee  called  together,  I  told  him  that 
there  was  no  necessity  for  the  meeting;  that  if 
he  would  give  me  access  to  the  books  my  ap- 
plication to  the  court  should  be  immediately 
withdrawn.  He  nevertheless  called  the  Com- 
mittee. They  met  June  15th.  I  stated  to  them 
that  if  they  would  give  me  access  to  the  books, 
I  would  withdraw  my  application,  to  which  they 
made  no  reply.  On  the  first  day  of  the  meeting 
I  was  asked  to  present  any  new  evidence  of  mis- 
management and  fraud,  to  which  I  replied: 

To  the  Book  Committee: 

Brethren. — I  am  informed  that  resolutions  are  now  before 
you  looking  to  the  extreme  exercise  of  your  power.  I  have 
heretofore  presented  to  you  evidence  of  fraud  and  misman- 
agement in  the  administration  of  the  Book  Concern  which 
has  never  been  fairly  and  fully  investigated.  I  have  also 
in  my  possession  additional  evidence  of  the  same  character, 
which  I  claim  the  right,  if  extreme  action  is  taken,  of 
bringing,  through  you,  before  the  Church.  The  issue  is  a 
broad  one,  and,  if  tried,  must  be  tried  as  such. 

The  questions  pending  are  more  than  questions  of  prop- 
erty; they  are  moral,  and  concern  the  integrity  of  the  Book 


FIFTH  MEETING.  2J5 

Concern,  its  claim  to  the  confidence  of  men,  and  its  power 
to  do  good  to  the  world. 

Neither  the  Church  nor  the  Christian  world  will  ever  be 
satisfied  with  any  less  than  a  just  determination  of  the 
charges  against  the  management  of  the  Concern,  and  that 
can  only  be  had  by  an  impartial  and  thorough  investigation 
of  all  the  matters  I  shall  bring  before  you. 

Yours  very  truly,  J.  LANAHAN. 

Immediately  upon  tlie  presentation  of  the 
above,  Rev.  B.  F.  Rawlings  presented  the  fol- 
lowing, which  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  it  was  no  part  of  the  purpose  of  this  Com- 
mittee in  asking  Dr.  Lanahan  to  lay  before  them  whatever 
new  evidence  he  had  of  fraud  in  the  Book  Concern,  that 
such  evidence  should  be  a  part  of  this  investigation. 

Was  there  ever  a  more  flagrant  wrong  upon 
every  principle  of  common  justice?  They  called 
for  new  evidence,  and  when  I  declared  my  readi- 
ness to  present  it,  they  answered,  that  it  was 
"no  part  of  their  purpose  that  such  evidence 
should  be  a  part  of  this  investigation."  Perhaps 
in  calling  for  new  evidence  they  supposed  that 
I  had  none  to  present,  and  that  in  calling  for  it 
they  would  make  some  show  of  seeking  evidence. 
Such  contradictions  frequently  marked  their 
proceedings. 

Among  the  items  in  his  complaint  was  the 
statement  that  if  he  had  to  attend  court  he  could 
not  attend  to  the  Book  Concern.  Referring  to 
that,  in  his  speech  before  the  Committee,  Dr. 
Buckley  said: 

Dr.  Carlton,  Alderman  of  Elizabeth,  New  Jersey,  Director 
of  the  Shoe  and  Leather  Bank,  Director  of  the  Home  Life 
Insurance  Company,  Director  of  oil  companies,  the  "  Cres- 


256  FIFTH  MEETING. 

cent,"  "  Mineral  Spring,"  "  Drop,"  and  I  don't  know  how 
many  more  companies.  Treasurer  of  tlie  Missionary  Society, 
and  Trustee  of  divers  literary  institutions,  makes  a  hue 
and  cry  that  attending  to  legal  proceedings  takes  his  time 
from  the  Concern;  but  as  he  brought  these  troubles  on  him- 
self, and  resisted  every  effort  to  obviate  them,  and  as  Dr. 
Lanahan  has  no  private  ends  to  gain  and  attends  strictly 
to  his  business,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  ought 
to  be  removed. 

Couiisel  for  Dr.  Carlton  were  Mr.  E.  L.  Fan- 
clier  and  General  Eunyon.  My  counsel  were 
Judge  Geo.  G.  Reynolds,  Dr.  James  M.  Buckley 
and  Thomas  W.  Price.  Dr.  Carlton's  complaint 
was  that  I  had  applied  to  the  court  for  a  manda- 
mus to  compel  him  to  afford  me  access  to  the 
books  of  account,  esjiecially  the  bank  books. 

I  admitted  that  I  had  done  so,  and  justified  it, 
first,  on  the  ground  of  my  right  as  a  Corporator. 
The  following  are  the  words  of  the  old  Charter 
of  1837: 

It  shall  be  lawful  for  Thomas  Mason  and  George  Lane, 
Agents  for  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  appointed  by  the 
General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  and 
their  successors  as  such  Agents,  to  take  and  hold  real  estate 
in  trust,  for  the  purposes  of  such  agency,  and  to  demise  and 
convey  the  same;  but  the  value  of  such  real  estate  so  taken 
and  held  by  them  shall  not  exceed  two  hundred  thousand 
dollars. 

The  real  estate  heretofore  conveyed  to  Thomas  Mason 
and  George  Lane,  as  Agents  aforesaid,  shall  be  considered 
as  part  of  the  real  estate  to  be  held  by  them  and  their 
successors,  as  such  Agents,  in  trust  as  aforesaid. 

George  Lane  was  Assistant  Agent,  yet  an 
Agent. 

I  also  quoted  the  following  from  the  new  Qiar- 
ter  which  Dr.  Carlton  and  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher, 


FIFTH  MEETING.  257 

without  a  word  of  consultation  with  me,  had 
gotten  from  the  Legislature  of  New  York,  1869: 

Section  2d.  Thomas  Carlton  and  John  lianahan,  Agents 
of  the  Methodist  Booli  Concern,  and  their  successor  or 
successors  in  office,  are  hereby  created  a  body  corporate 
by  tlie  name  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  in  the  City  of 
New  York,  and  by  that  name  and  style  they  and  their 
successor  or  successors  in  office  shall  have  perpetual  suc- 
cession, and  shall  be  capable  in  law  of  holding  property, 
real,  personal  and  mixed,  either  by  purchase,  gift,  grant, 
devise  or  legacy,  subject,  however,  to  all  existing  provisions 
of  law  relative  to  devises  and  bequests  by  last  will  and 
testament,  and  to  sell  and  convey  the  same;  but  the  value 
of  the  real  estate  so  held  in  the  State  of  New  York  shall 
not  exceed  fifteen  hundred  thousand  dollars,  provided  that 
all  such  property  shall  be  held  in  trust,  and  used  only  for 
the  purpose  or  purposes  hereinafter  designated. 

Section  3d.  The  persons  named  in  the  first  section  of  this 
act  shall  hold  their  offices  until  the  quadrennial  session 
of  the  General  Conference  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  in  May,  1872,  or  until  a  successor  or  successors 
shall  be  elected  in  their  places,  and  they  shall  have  the 
management  and  disposition  of  the  affairs  and  property  of 
the  said  corporation  during  th«ir  term  of  service. 

The  binding  force  of  the  Charter  is  too  plain 
to  admit  of  being  questioned,  and  the  responsi- 
bilities which  it  created  rested  as  much  upon 
me  as  upon  my  associate.  In  further  justifica- 
tion I  quoted  the  following  from  the  Discipline 
as  the  plain  law  of  the  Church: 

The  Agents  shall  have  authority  to  regulate  the  publica- 
tions and  all  other  parts  of  the  business  of  the  Concern, 
except  what  belongs  to  the  Editorial  Departments,  as  the 
state  of  the  finances  will  admit  and  the  demands  may 
require.  It  shall  be  their  duty  to  send  an  exhibit  of  the 
state  of  the  Book  Concern  at  New  York  to  each  session 
of  the  Annual  Confei'ences.  and  report  quadrennially  to  the 
General  Conference. 


258  FIFTH  MEETING. 

I  contended  that  I  could  not  unite  with  my 
associate  in  making  such  "exhibit"  and  "re- 
port" with  the  books  of  account,  especially  the 
bank  books  and  vouchers  closed  against  me,  and 
more  especially,  when  in  possession  of  what  I 
believed  to  be  positive  evidence  that  portions 
of  the  property  had  been  prostituted  to  personal 
ends;  that  if  the  General  Conference  had  intend- 
ed that  there  should  be  but  one  Agent,  it  would 
have  required  his  signature  alone  to  the  ex- 
hibits and  reports;  that  I  was  not  expected  to 
sign  such  documents  upon  the  representation  of 
others;  that  though  an  Assistant,  I  was  never- 
theless an  Agent;  that  as  a  holder  of  the  trust 
I  was  equally  responsible  with  my  associate. 

The  above  is  only  the  text  of  my  reply. 

A  majority  of  tJie  Committee  voted  for  my 
expulsion  from  office.  The  consummation  of  it 
required  the  concurrence  of  both  of  the  Bishops. 
The  following  is  from  Bishop  Janes'  decision, 
which  he  states  will  be  upon  the  "one  act"  of 
my  suing  out  a  mandamus.    Bishop  Janes  says: 

If  these  books  were  necessary  to  the  defendant  for  the 
purposes  stated,  he  ought  undoubtedly  to  have  them.  The 
interests  of  truth,  of  righteousness,  and  the  golden  rule 
of  the  Saviour,  required  it.  As  Assistant  Agent  he  had  a 
right,  observing  strictly  the  rules  of  the  house  in  doing  it— 
the  same  order  as  is  observed  by  the  senior  Agent— to  go 
and  examine  them.  This  right  inheres  in  his  office.  It  is 
just  as  necessary  to  him  in  the  performance  of  several  of 
the  specified  functions  of  his  office  as  to  the  senior  Agent, 
and  thei-efore  just  as  much  his  right.  The  law  requires  no 
officer  to  do  what  it  does  not  empower  him  to  do.  If  pre- 
vented by  the  senior  Agent,  he  ought  to  take  proper  means 
to  secure  this  right.    In  doing  this  there  might  come  an 


FIFTH  MEETING.  259 

exigency  when  it  would  be  right  for  him  to  appeal  to  the 
civil  authorities;  but  this  should  be  a  last  resort,  after  all 
ecclesiastical  means  failed.  The  Book  Committee  are  his 
disciplinary  advisers.  His  first  appeal  should  be  to  them. 
If  they  refuse  to  come  together  at  his  call,  or,  coming  to- 
gether, fail  to  give  him  his  rights,  or  the  senior  Agent 
refusing  to  carry  out  their  instructions  to  that  effect,  and 
no  other  recourse  being  left  him,  after  due  counsel,  he 
would  undoubtedly  be  at  liberty  to  seek  the  intervention 
of  the  civil  courts.  All  this  would  take  but  a  few  days, 
as  the  history  of  the  case  shows— less  time  than  the  obtain- 
ing of  the  mandamus  of  the  Court.  I  think  the  Assistant 
Agent  erred  in  not  seeking  redress  from  the  alleged  action 
of  the  senior  Agent  in  this  way  before  he  went  to  the  Court, 
and  the  more  so  as  Dr.  Carlton  professed  to  be  governed 
by  the  instructions  of  the  Book  Committee. 

The  manner  of  making  the  application  to  the  Court  in 
my  judgment  was  erroneous.  True,  his  counsel  testify  that 
they  advised  the  course  pursued,  and  drew  up  the  affidavit, 
and  gave  it  as  their  opinion  that  it  was  right.  Still  it  seems 
to  me  Dr.  Lanahan  did  wrong  in  allowing  his  counsel  to 
use  only  the  Charter  in  determining  his  official  status. 
While  in  that  he  and  Dr.  Carlton  are  corporators  or  tnistees 
jointly  of  the  property  of  the  Concern,  yet  in  the  Discipline 
and  in  the  election  of  the  General  Conference  he  is  styled 
Assistant  Agent;  and  the  Discipline  and  the  usage  of  the 
Church  in  important  respects  made  Dr.  Carlton  his  superior. 
His  counsel  should  have  been  required  to  correctly  state 
his  office  in  all  proceedings  where  his  official  station  was 
referred  to.  To  do  otherwise  could  not  fail  to  produce  a 
"  conflict  of  authority  "  and  to  mislead. 

Dr.  Lanahan  must  also  be  responsible  for  the  reasons 
assigned  for  asking  the  mandamus.  One  reason  given  is 
in  these  words:  "  For  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  whether 
all  the  property  held  by  or  standing  in  the  name  of  the 
Agents  or  former  Agents  of  said  Book  Concern  has  been 
turned  over  to  the  said  corporation,  this  deponent  desires 
lo  examine  the  books  of  said  Concern,  and  particularly  the 
check-books,  bank-books,  and  vouchers  from  1856  till  the 
present  time."  It  was  certainly  i-ight  for  the  Assistant 
Agent  to  seek  and  possess  this  information.  For  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  this  information  I  hold  he  had  a  perfect 
right  to  personally  examine  any  and  all  of  the  books  of 


260  FIFTH  MEETING. 

the  Concern  under  the  rules  of  the  house.  It  prevented  by 
the  senior  Agent,  it  would  be  a  proper  subject  to  bring  to 
the  attention  of  the  Book  Committee.  As  Dr.  Lanahan  does 
not  claim  in  his  affidavit  to  know  there  was  any  such 
property  not  so  turned  over  and  in  jeopardy,  the  case  does 
not  seem  to  be  so  urgent  that  if  the  Book  Committee  and 
senior  Agent  failed  to  give  him  the  information,  the  matter 
could  not  lie  over  until  the  meeting  of  the  General  Con- 
ference. I  cannot,  therefore,  see  the  necessity  for  this  legal 
procedure. 

In  reference  to  the  items  of  official  misconduct  alleged 
in  the  third  general  statement  in  the  bill  of  complaints, 
I  deem  it  proper  to  say  that,  after  considering  the  cir- 
cumstances under  which  they  occurred,  so  far  as  they  did 
occur,  and  the  explanations  given  by  the  defendant,  I  can- 
not agree  with  the  Committee  in  their  judgment  upon  the 
three  first  that  they  were  official  misconduct.  The  last 
paragraph  in  the  communication  of  the  complainant  is  in 
the  words,  "  In  view  of  the  foregoing  facts,  and  a  great 
number  of  others  which  have  been  brought  to  your  notice 
during  the  past  two  years,  it  remains  for  you,  in  your  wis- 
dom as  the  supervisors  of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  to 
take  such  action  as  under  the  circumstances  you  may  judge 
will  best  promote  the  interests  of  the  Church  and  the  Book 
Concern."  When  I  read  this  I  supposed  all  the  issues  of 
the  past  two  years  were  to  be  examined;  but  none  of  the 
"  great  number  of  other  facts  "  were  traversed  at  all  except 
in  the  speeches  of  counsel,  neither  did  the  Committee  vote 
upon  them.  As  the  complainant  and  the  Committee  seemed 
to  regard  them  only  as  rhetoric,  I  shall  so  treat  them.  The 
Committee  will,  therefore,  perceive  that  my  opinion,  what- 
ever it  may  be,  will  be  based  wholly,  upon  the  first  and 
principal  complaint,  namely,  the  suing  out  a  writ  of  man- 
damus. 

The  management  of  the  Book  Room  having  become  a 
subject  of  inquiry  and  criticism,  the  question  of  its  integrity 
can  be  settled  only  by  a  most  thorough,  competent,  and 
impartial  examination.  This  examination  must  be  made  in 
part  at  least,  by  laymen;  not  wholly  by  accountants,  but 
men  whose  general  business  reputation  and  character  are 
known  throughout  the  Church.  They  must  be  so  selected 
and  appointed  that  there  can  be  no  apprehension,  no  sem- 


FIFTH  MEETING.  261 

blance  even,  of  their  being  partisan;  their  roots,  even,  must 
not  be  found  in  partisan  grounds.  Nothing  short  of  this 
will  satisfy  the  Church;  nothing  short  of  this  ought  to 
satisfy  the  Church;  nothing  short  of  this  need  satisfy  the 
Church,  for  it  will  certainly  be  had.  No  human  power  can 
prevent  it.  It  may  be  embarrassed  and  delayed,  but  can- 
not be  stopped.  The  longer  it  is  delayed  the  more  thorough 
it  will  be.  An  examination  that  would  have  been  satisfac- 
toiy  six  months  ago  would  not  be  satisfactory  to-day. 
Books  and  book-keeping,  buying,  selling,  printing,  binding, 
all  the  modes  and  methods  of  business  must  be  inquired 
into  and  reported  upon.  It  is  because  the  Church  sees 
this  examination  to  be  inevitable  that  she  is  calmly  waiting 
for  its  results,  and  because  she  sees  it  to  be  inevitable  she 
will  continue  calmly  to  wait  until  it  comes.  She  will  not 
be  agitated,  but  wait  in  quietude  and  confidence,  and  in  my 
judgment  all  parties  can  well  afford  to  wait  until,  in  an 
orderly  way,  and  through  appropriate  agencies,  this  result 
may  be  obtained.  Whether  it  can  be  had  before  the  General 
Conference  or  not  I  cannot  say.  If  it  can  I  shall  be  glad; 
if  not,  I  am  sure  it  will  come  then  or  afterward. 

With  Dr.  Lanahan  I  have  been  acquainted  for  more  than 
a  quarter  of  a  century.  I  have  assigned  him  to  some  of 
the  most  responsible  and  difficult  appointments  in  his  Con- 
ference. He  has  always  met  his  obligations  with  fidelity 
and  ability.  I  have  honored  him  in  my  heart  as  well  as  in 
my  administration.  My  confidence  in  him  as  a  Christian 
brother  and  minister  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  unshaken, 
and  my  affection  for  him  undisturbed.  My  decision  refers 
only  to  his  official  act  as  Assistant  Agent  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern. His  act  of  suing  out  a  writ  of  mandamus  at  the  time 
and  in  the  manner  he  did  I  cannot  approve;  but  the  question 
whether  the  error  is  sufficient  to  remove  him  from  office  I 
have  found  a  very  difficult  one  to  decide.  With  hesitancy 
(for  on  this  one  point  my  mind  has  wavered  up  to  this 
moment)  the  preponderance  of  my  convictions  of  official 
duty  in  the  case  requires  me.  though  it  is  the  most  painful 
official  duty  of  my  life,  to  concur  with  the  Committee  in 
their  action  of  the  24th  instant,  in  removing  Rev.  John 
Lanahan  from  his  office  as  Assistant  Book  Agent  at  New 
York,  and  I  hereby  concur.  E.  S.  JANES. 


262  FIFTH  MEETING. 

As  Bisliop  Ames'  opinion  is  brief,  I  give  the 
whole  of  it: 

OPINION  OF  BISHOP  AMES. 

New  York,  June  26,  1871. 
To  the  Book  Committee: 

Dear  Brethren. — Bishop  Janes  and  myself  agree  in  onr 
judgment  touching  the  law  which  governs  the  Book  Agents 
in  the  discharge  of  their  official  duties. 

First.  That  the  Agent  has  sole  control  in  conducting  the 
business  of  the  Concern  and  that  he  is  to  be  assisted  by 
the  Junior  Agent,  who  should  receive  the  wislies  of  his 
official  superior  with  deference,  and  sliould  execute  them 
with  cheerfulness.  I  do  not  understand  that  there  has  been 
any  conflict  of  authority  between  the  Agents  under  this 
provision  of  the  law. 

Second.  That  in  deciding  what  books  shall  be  published, 
the  Agents  have  equal  authority.  They  must  mutually 
agree  before  a  volume  can  issue  from  the  press.  This  is 
the  law,  and  the  practice  under  it  has  been  uniform.  The 
names  of  both  Agents  are  on  the  title  page  of  eveiy  book. 

Third.  The  Agents  are  required  to  make  exhibits  annu- 
ally and  quadrennially. 

This  official  duty  required  of  the  Agents  by  the  General 
Conference  is  equally  binding  on  each,  and  the  document 
always  has  the  signatures  of  both  Agents. 

It  appears  to  me  absolutely  necessary,  in  order  to  the 
right  performance  of  this  important  duty,  that  each  of  the 
Agents  sliould  be  permitted  to  enjoy,  without  any  restric- 
tion, the  right  to  examine  all  the  books  and  papers  of  the 
Concern. 

On  the  question  of  the  unrestricted  official  right  of  the 
Assistant  Agent  to  examine  all  the  books  and  accounts  of 
the  Concern  there  has  arisen  a  conflict  of  authority.  It 
seems  to  me  from  an  examination  of  this  case  that  the 
Assistant  Agent  has  not  been  permitted  to  exercise  this 
right.  He  applied  to  the  courts  for  aid  that  he  might  secure 
it.  Such  an  act  must  be  judged  of  in  the  light  of  its  own 
surroundings. 

I  so  judge  of  this,  and  so  judging,  I  do  not  feel  justified 
in  visiting  upon  it  so  severe  a  penalty  as  that  inflicted  by 
the  Committee. 


FIFTH  MEETING.  263 

Bishop  Janes  and  myself  differ  only  in  the  conclusion 
which  we  draw  from  the  facts  on  this  single  point,  and  in 
our  long  and  intimate  official  relations  with  each  other  we 
have  always  drawn  together  so  harmoniously  and  pleas- 
antly that  it  pains  me  to  differ  from  my  colleague  in  the 
slight  matter  of  drawing  a  conclusion;  but,  as  I  do  differ, 
honesty  compels  me  to  say  so.  But  with  this  single  excep- 
tion, I  agree  most  cordially  in  all  that  Bishop  Janes  has 
said  in  his  written  opinion  in  the  case. 

In  conclusion,  brethren  of  the  Committee,  I  must  say 
that  the  penalty  inflicted  by  your  verdict  appears  to  me 
to  be  more  severe  than  the  gravity  and  importance  of  the 
complaints  justify;  and,  as  I  find  myself  at  variance  with 
your  judgment,  duty  compels  me  to  say  that  I  cannot  and 
do  not  concur  in  your  verdict  removing  Rev.  John  Lanaban 
from  his  office  of  Assistant  Book  Agent  of  the  Book  Con- 
cern at  New  York. 

(Signed)  E.  R.  AMES. 

Neither  Bisliop  Janes  nor  Bisliop  Ames  could 
liave  said  less  of  me  than  they  did.  As  to  the 
searching  investigation  which  Bishop  Janes  pre- 
dicted, it  never  came. 

My  application  to  the  court  for  mandamus 
was  denied  by  Judge  Barnard.  The  result  did 
not  disappoint  me.  While  the  case  was  pending, 
E.  Grant,  who  was  in  the  confidence  of  the  par- 
ties, said  to  a  person,  who  reported  it  to  me, 
"Do  you  know  how  the  mandamus  case  was 
managed?  It  was  first  brought  before  Judge 
Cordoza,  and  from  him  passed  to  Judge  Ingram, 
and  from  him  to  Judge  Barnard,  who  is  intimate 
with  Mr.  rancher  and  at  the  Shoe  and  Leather 
Bank."  That  remark  foreshadowed  what  the 
decision  would  be.  In  his  decision  Judge  Barn- 
ard went  out  of  his  way  to  abuse  my  witnesses 
and  lecture  me,  stating  that  if  I  wanted  infor- 


264  FIFTH  MEETING. 

mation  I  should  have  gone  to  Grant,  the  book- 
keeper, or  to  Denham,  the  cashier,  and  at  the 
same  time  glorified  the  great  prosperity  of  the 
Book  Concern.  He  also  quoted  from  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  Book  Committee,  making  me  Dr. 
Carlton's  subordinate,  and  said: 

The  relator  is  inferior  to  and  subordinate  in  position  to 
tlie  respondent  (Dr.  Carlton),  and  wholly  subject  in  his 
official  action  to  the  control  and  direction  of  Dr.  Carlton, 
and  the  relator  has  no  right  to  any  books  or  papers  which 
the  respondent  or  the  Book  Committee  does  not  voluntarily 
furnish  him.  Where  the  relator's  right  is  denied,  of  course 
the  writ  will  not  be  issued. 

Soon  after  the  above  decision  was  rendered, 
Judge  Barnard  was  impeached  before  the  Legis- 
lature of  New  York,  on  charges,  thirty-nine  in 
number,  prepared  by  the  Bar  Association.  The 
Legislature  assembled  July  17,  1872,  at  Sara- 
toga. He  was  found  g'uilty  and  dismissed  from 
the  Bench.  He  was  charged  with  corrupt  con- 
duct in  granting  injunctions,  and  appointing 
receivers  in  various  suits,  with  receiving  pres- 
ents and  other  personal  favors,  and  with  un- 
seemly conduct  in  open  court.  The  last  charge 
was  drunkenness.  The  right  kind  of  Judge  for 
such  a  case!  It  w^as  spoken  of  as  an  ojyen  secret, 
that  Mr.  Fancher,  who  was  "intimate"  with  the 
Judge,  'v\Tote  his  decision.  Tliere  is  certainly 
marked  similarity  between  some  of  the  Judge's 
language  and  the  speech  of  Mr.  Fancher  before 
the  Book  Committee,  as  reported  in  the  papers. 
The  decision  and  the  speech  are  now  lying  be- 
fore me. 


FIFTH  MEETING.  265 

THE   GENERAL   CONFEllEKCE   OF   1872. 

There  is  another  matter  that  calls  for  refer- 
ence in  order  to  a  full  understanding  of  this  case. 
At  the  General  Conference  of  1872  I  presented 
a  report  of  my  investigation  of  mismanagement 
and  frauds,  and  asked  its  reference  to  a  Com- 
mittee to  be  selected  by  the  Bishops  from  men 
of  proved  business  capacity  and  experience.  The 
subject,  having  to  do  alone  with  methods  of  busi- 
ness and  alleged  facts  in  its  conduct,  was  one 
for  whose  consideration  trained  business  men 
possessed  all  the  requisite  qualifications,  and  of 
the  kind  and  scope  seldom  found  in  others.  The 
Bishops  as  a  body  could  be  depended  upon  to 
exercise  the  greatest  care  in  their  selection,  and 
their  wide  acquaintance  gave  them  opportunity, 
out  of  many  who  would  be  suitable  for  this  work, 
to  choose  the  best.  The  appointees  themselves 
would  have  every  inducement  to  be  painstaking, 
thorough  and  impartial  in  their  examination, 
and  just  in  their  final  conclusion.  Wliy,  then, 
my  proposal  should  have  been  objected  to  by 
any  who  were  not  swayed  by  prejudice  or  self- 
interest,  it  is  difficult  to  conceive.  And  yet  the 
special  friends  of  Dr.  Carlton  and  the  Book  Com- 
mittee arrayed  themselves  against  it  with  un- 
yielding opposition,  contending  for  a  committee 
of  one  from  each  of  the  seventy- two  delegations 
that  composed  the  General  Conference.  Their 
views  prevailed,  and  to  this  Committee  my  re- 
port, with  the  majority  and  minority  reports  of 


20G  FIFTH  MEETING. 

the  Book  Committee  and  those  of  Dr.  Carlton, 
Mr.  Kilbreth  and  Mr.  Gunn  were  referred. 

These  several  reports  as  subsequently  publish- 
ed in  the  General  Conference  Journal  make  one 
hundred  and  forty  octavo  pages  of  closely  print- 
ed matter.  Mr.  Gunn's  alone  was  the  result  of 
fifteen  months'  thorough  examination  of  the  ac- 
coimts.  An  examination  of  all  these  reports 
would  have  occupied  the  time  of  an  accountant 
at  least  three  months.  Yet  they  were  to  be 
examined  by  this  committee  in  less  than  parts 
of  twelve  days.  Thus  was  realized  what  I,  in 
my  report,  anticipated  in  these  words: 

Efforts  will  be  made  to  bring  side  issues  before  you,  with 
the  view  of  preventing  a  direct  and  speedy  examination  of 
the  main  questions,  mismanagement  and  fraud.  You  may 
be  overwhelmed  with  documents,  and  then  assured  that  it 
will  be  impossible  for  you  in  the  time  of  your  session  to 
examine  them. 

But  this  is  not  all.  A  paper  called  a  "  memo- 
rial," was  presented  to  the  General  Conference 
by  Dr.  D.  Curry,  from  S.  J.  Goodenough,  denying 
his  frauds,  which  was  also  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee.   In  it  is  the  following: 

As  showing  the  inspiring  cause  of  the  course  pursued  by 
Dr.  Lanahan  to  break  up  the  monopoly  of  Mr.  Porter,  as 
he  terms  it,  I  can  put  the  Committee  of  the  General  Con- 
ference on  the  track  of  investigating  a  matter  which  might 
throw  some  light  on  his  motives— whether  while  he  was 
moving  to  get  rid  of  Mr.  Porter  and  myself,  he  was  not 
trying  to  procure  a  position  for  his  own  son  as  a  partner  in 
the  paper  business.  You  may  draw  your  own  inference. 
If  desired,  the  names  of  the  parties  who  can  furnish  infor- 
mation will  be  forthcoming. 


FIFTH  MEETING.  267 

I  called  for  an  examination  of  the  scandalous 
statement,  but  no  attention  was  given  to  my  call. 
An  imlieard-of  thing  too  in  the  history  of  Gen- 
eral Conferences  is  that  that  so-called  "memo- 
rial," which  was  never  heard  of  after  it  was 
read,  should  find  a  place  in  the  Journal,  with  the 
official  documents  (see  Journal,  p.  681.)  Thus 
matters  were  managed  to  create  complications 
and  divert  attention  from  the  main  question. 

But  this  is  not  all;  whilst  the  so-called  "me- 
morial" was  thus  honored,  all  the  evidence  of 
the  long  continued  frauds  embodied  in  the  report 
of  Mr.  Gunn  was  purposely  excluded  from  the 
Journal.  That  report  with  its  accompanying  evi- 
dence cost  the  Book  Concern  nearly  |6,000.  There 
were  many  busy  hands  at  work  in  those  days. 

The  charges  in  my  report  were  made  as  defi- 
nite and  positive  as  possible,  giving  names,  and 
dates,  and  details,  with  studied  brevity  and  suf- 
ficiently careful  exactness  to  prepare  the  way 
for  an  intelligent,  easy  and  thorough  investiga- 
tion, and  I  was  ready  with  all  ueeded  evidence 
to  substantiate  them.  It  might,  therefore,  be 
reasonably  supposed  that  I  would  have  been 
summoned  before  the  Committee,  or  at  least  one 
of  the  Sub-committees.  But  my  presence  was 
neither  sought  nor  allowed  at  any  of  their  meet- 
ings. I  was  treated  as  if  I  was  absolutely  and 
entirely  outside  the  case.  At  the  same  time 
members  of  the  Committee  were  in  constant 
communication  with  Dr.  Carlton,  S.  J.  Goode- 
nough,  E.  Grant,  J.  P.  Kilbreth  and  like-minded 


268  FIFTH  MEETING. 

persons,  who  were  their  chief  sources  of  infor- 
mation, and  their  statements  ruled  out  what- 
ever conflicted,  as  untrustworthy,  no  matter 
whence  it  came  or  however  it  was  confirmed. 

In  their  report  to  the  General  Conference,  they 
quote  from  the  report  of  Mr.  Kilbreth,  but 
make  no  allusion  to  Mr.  Gunn's  report,  nor  do 
they  so  much  as  mention  his  name.  They  admit 
"  repeated  frauds  "  in  the  Book  Concern,  locating 
them  in  "the  manufacturing  department,"  and 
"chiefly,  if  not  wholly  in  the  Bindery,"  whose 
Superintendent,  Mr.  Hoffman,  is  accused  of  car- 
rying on  a  system  of  frauds  for  years,  "  by  which 
the  Concern  sustained  very  considerable  losses." 
Notwithstanding  all  this,  they  exculpate  the 
"Agent  and  Assistant"  from  blame.  Perhaps 
the  Assistant  Agent  ought  to  feel  relieved  that 
for  once  he  escaped!  Holfman  was  made  the 
scapegoat. 

The  Committee  closed  their  report  with  the 
following  remarkable  statement:  "It  is,  per- 
haps, sufficient  to  say  that  your  Committee  have 
no  evidence  before  them  tending  to  show  that 
the  exhibits  should  be  different  from  what  they 
are."  Such  evidence  was  amply  supplied  in  my 
report,  and  especially  in  that  of  Mr.  Gunn.  Will 
my  reader  please  turn  to  pages  201,  207,  208-209 
of  this  narrative  for  an  answer  to  the  above 
statement? 


OUTCOME  OF  THE  SUIT  OF  GOODENOUGH. 

The  case  was  called  in  court  in  the  month  of 
May,  1871.  Counsel  on  both  sides  were  present. 
The  Judge  asked  if  they  would  be  ready  on  a 
day  specified  by  him  in  the  next  week?  They 
answered  afltirmatively.  On  the  designated  day, 
Dr.  Carlton,  Dr.  Daniel  Wise,  and  one  or  two 
others  from  the  Book  Concern  were  there  with 
S.  J.  Goodenough  and  his  attorneys.  M}^  coun- 
sel, accompanied  by  ex- Judge  Porter,  and  my- 
self, were  there.  I  had  no  supporters  or  sympa- 
thizers from  the  Book  Concern,  but  I  was  armed 
with  facts  sufficient  to  scatter  like  chaff  a  thous- 
and such  suits  for  "  slander  and  libel."  The 
case  was  called  and  the  plaintiff's  counsel,  in- 
stead of  being  ready,  called  for  the  reading  of 
my  answer.  The  presiding  Judge  remarked, 
"  You  said  you  would  be  ready  to-day."  Counsel 
moved  to  have  the  answer  amended.  Instead 
of  giving  the  proper  names,  the  answer  specified 
"certain  N^ew  York  houses,"  who  were  well 
knovkai  and  would  have  appeared  as  witnesses. 
I  requested  my  counsel  to  amend  the  answer  on 
the  spot,  and  have  the  trial  go  on.  He  replied, 
"No,  they  are  dodging;  let  them  dodge."  And 
dodge  they  did,  against  my  wishes.  If  it  had 
been  put  off  by  my  counsel,  another  bulletin 
would  no  doubt  have  appeared  in  the  Christian 

269 


270  OUTCOME  OF  THE  SUIT  OF  GOODBNOUGH. 

Advocate,  but,  of  course,  in  "  response  to  numer- 
ous inquiries."  They  never  appeared  in  court 
again.  Their  narrow  escape — ^manifestly  pre- 
arranged— taught  them  a  lesson  which  they  did 
not  disregard. 

The  General  Conference  held  in  Brooklyn, 
May,  1872,  adjourned  June  4th.  Three  days  after 
I  had  occasion  to  visit  the  Book  Concern,  where 
I  remained  a  short  time.  From  there,  I  took  a 
street  car  to  visit  a  friend  in  his  office,  more  than 
a  mile  distant,  in  another  part  of  the  city.  Soon 
after  I  had  gotten  there,  two  men  appeared  at 
the  office  door,  and  one  called  my  name.  I  re- 
sponded. He  laid  his  hand  upon  me  and  said, 
"You  are  under  arrest,"  and  handed  me  the 
following: 

Samuel  J.  Goodenough,  Plaintiff, 
against 
John  Lanahan,  Defendant. 
To  the  Sheriff  of  the  City  and  County  of  New  York: 

It  having  been  made  apparent  to  me  by  affidavit,  and  to 
the  plaintiff  in  this  action  that  Samuel  J.  Goodenough  has 
a  sufficient  cause  of  action  against  John  Lanahan  for 
slander  and  libel,  and  has  commenced  action  therefor, 
you  are  required  forthwith  to  arrest  the  defendant  in  this 
action  for  the  cause  aforesaid,  and  hold  him  in  the  sum  of 
$5,000,  and  to  return  this  order  to  Brown  and  Estis,  plain- 
tiff's attorneys,  at  229  Broadway,  New  York,  on  the  15th 
day  of  June,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  seventy-two. 

JOHN  J.  FREEDMAN, 
Judge  Supreme  Court. 

I  merely  glanced  at  it,  and  putting  it  in  my 
pocket,  said:  "Gentlemen,  please  take  seats 
until  I  write  a  note  to  my  family."    The  head 


OUTCOME  OF  TDE  SUIT  OF  GOODEXOUGH.  271 

man  gruffly  replied,  "  We  have  no  time  for  that." 
"What,"  I  said,  "no  time  to  allow  me  to  write 
a  note  to  my  family?"  "No  time,"  he  replied. 
"Please  give  me  yonr  name,  Sir?"  "That  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  matter,"  he  quickly  re- 
sponded. "What!  you  an  officer,  and  ashamed 
to  give  your  name?  I  am  at  your  disposal." 
They  marched  me  off  to  the  Sheriff's  office,  in 
the  City  Hall.  There  the  assistant  officer  left 
the  head  man  and  myself.  I  suppose  he  thought 
one  was  enough  to  manage  me.  In  the  same 
gruff  style,  as  if  he  really  felt  that  he  was  more 
than  a  man  in  authority  over  me,  he  said,  "  Are 
you  prepared  to  give  security?"  I  replied,  "You 
have  treated  me  with  all  possible  rudeness,  as 
if  I  were  a  common  thief;  refused  me  a  brief 
moment  to  write  a  note  to  my  family;  please 
exhaust  whatever  authority  you  may  have  as  an 
officer,  and  then  relieve  me  of  your  presence." 
He  quickly  disappeared,  as  I  supposed,  to  report 
to  the  plaintiff's  attorneys,  whose  office  hap- 
pened to  be  in  the  same  building  with  that  of  Mr. 
E.  L.  Fancher.  When  he  returned,  he  asked  in 
his  mandatory  style,  "  Are  you  prepared  to  give 
security?  "  "  I  have  given  you  my  answer,"  I  re- 
plied, "  Please  do  the  work  given  you,  and  I  shall 
feel  relieved  when  you  are  out  of  my  sight." 
"Then  you  must  go  to  jail.  Come  along."  I 
went  "  along,"  of  course,  to  Ludlow  St.  Jail.  In 
the  walk  to  the  Jail  he  seemed  to  have  softened 
in  his  manner,  for  he  said  to  the  Jailer,  "  Treat 
this   gentleman    cleverly."     I    slept   none   that 


272  OUTCOME  OF  THE  SUIT  OF  GOODENOUGH. 

night,  not,  however,  on  account  of  what  had 
occurred,  but  it  was  a  new  thing  for  me  to  see 
bugs  creeping  on  the  wall  of  my  bed-room.  The 
first  information  my  family  received  of  my  im- 
prisonment was  through  the  afternoon  papers. 
But  they  were  not  in  the  least  distm^bed.  They 
knew  me  better  than  the  famous  Book  Commit- 
tee, better  than  the  official  Editors,  better  than 
Thomas  Carlton  and  Mr.  E.  L.  Fancher. 

My  brother  arrived  at  New  York  the  next 
morning.  Mr.  Augustine  Smith  and  Mr.  Daniel 
Appleton  of  the  Publishing  House  of  Appleton 
&  Company,  gave  bond  of  |5,000  for  my  appear- 
ance in  court  to  meet  the  suit.  Prominent  citi- 
zens of  New  York,  in  and  out  of  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church,  requested  me  to  accept  of  a 
public  reception,  and  I  was  informed  that  clergy- 
men of  other  than  my  own  Church,  expressed  a 
desire  to  participate.  Some  gentlemen  of  wealth 
asked  me  to  accept  of  a  substantial  recognition, 
all  of  which  I  declined,  of  course.  I  narrate 
these  facts,  not  only  because  they  are  a  part  of 
this  narrative,  but  to  show  that  the  condition 
of  things  in  the  Book  Concern  was  known  and 
talked  of  outside  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church  better  than  they  seemed  to  have  been 
known  in  it.  I  was  really  amazed  to  learn  that 
in  a  large  class  of  business  houses,  the  manage- 
ment of  the  Concern  had  been  a  by-word.  In 
other  publishing  houses,  the  workmen  were  in 
the  habit  of  speaking  of  it  in  their  slang  way. 
A  few  in  the  Church  had  previously  said  to  me 


OUTCOME  OF  THE  SUIT  OF  GOODBNOUGH.  273 

that  "they  had  long  believed  that  all  was  not 
right  in  the  Book  Room;  that  there  was  no  power 
to  go  behind  the  Agents ;  but  now,  as  I  was  one,  I 
could  act."  Well,  I  did  act,  and  it  came  near 
costing  me  what  is  dearer  to  every  honest  man 
than  life  itself — ^my  character,  which  had  been 
built  up  through  more  than  thirty  years  of  as 
true  and  faithful  service  in  the  Church  as  one 
of  my  physical  and  mental  ability  could  render; 
a  man  of  one  work — ^the  work  assigned  me  by 
my  Church. 

These  words  will  be  read  by  some  who  have 
known  me  and  my  work  as  a  teacher  of  men 
in  the  things  of  God  during  my  entire  life. 

I  never  had  a  doubt  that  when  I  left  the  Book 
Concern  that  morning,  I  was  followed,  and  that 
information  was  promptly  conveyed  to  the  Sher- 
iff's office  as  to  where  I  could  be  found.  I  had 
not  been  hiding.  Sheriff  Brennan's  men  could 
have  found  me  at  my  residence.  And  why  were 
two  men  sent?  Did  they  suppose  force  would 
be  required?  The  manner  in  which  the  head 
man  spoke  and  acted  impressed  me  that  he 
rather  desired  to  have  occasion  to  handle  me. 
He  was  evidently  acting  under  instructions. 

The  New  York  papers  drew  striking  contrasts 
between  the  treatment  I  received,  and  that  ac- 
corded to  William  M.  Tweed,  who  was  charged 
with  plimdering  the  City  Government.  The  fol- 
lowing is  from  the  Times: 

"When  Bill  Tweed,  the  biggest  rogue  of  the  age,  was  to 
be  arrested,  what  did  this  same  Brennan  do?    Sent  him  a 


274  OUTCOME  OF  THE  SUIT  OF  GOODBNOUGH. 

private  note,  politely  informing  bim  that  at  a  certain  hour 
on  a  certain  day  the  Sheriff  would  humbly  wait  upon  His 
Highness,  hoping  that  it  would  not  cause  him  any  inconven- 
ience, &c.,  &c.  At  the  appointed  time,  Brennan  obsequi- 
ously made  his  bow  to  the  "Boss"  and— took  him  to  jail? 
Not  a  bit  of  it. 

Then  and  there  he  made  all  the  arrangements  which 
Tweed  was  pleased  to  dictate,  waited  day  after  day  for  his 
convenience,  and  apologized  for  his  intrusion.  In  the  same 
way  he  treated  the  other  Ring  thieves.  And  yet,  when  a 
well-known  clergyman  is  to  be  arrested  in  a  malicious  suit, 
supported  only  by  ex  parte  aflSdavits,  he  sends  two  ruffians 
to  insult  and  degrade  him,  and  thus  renders  himself  re- 
sponsible for  an  outrage  which  will  excite  indignation  far 
beyond  the  limits  of  the  Methodist  Church. 

The  proceeding  recalls  that  of  the  late  Fisk  against 
Samuel  Bowles,  of  the  Springfield  Republican,  and  suggests 
the  inquiry  whether  the  broken  Book  Concern  Ring  has  as 
complete  control  of  the  New  York  ministers  of  the  law  as 
the  broken  Erie  Tammany  Ring  had.  The  suit  is  re- 
garded as  vindictive,  and  it  will  be  generally  believed  that 
his  unnecessary  arrest  and  the  treatment  incident  to  it 
are  designed  as  a  punishment  for  having  brought  charges 
against  the  old  managers  of  the  Book  Concern,  and— which 
is  more  exasperating— for  having  proved  them. 

But  tlie  treatment  I  received  from  Sheriff 
Brennan's  men  was  insignificant — as  nothing — 
compared  with  that  which  I  had  received  from 
a  majority  of  the  Book  Committee  in  their  Star 
Chamber  meetings,  where  my  written  official 
statements,  as  one  of  the  Agents,  corroborated 
by  employees  of  the  House  and  merchants  of 
the  highest  respectability,  were  disallowed,  be- 
cause they  were  denied  by  the  defrauders. 

Epithets  and  abusive  language  were  attribut- 
ed to  me,  as  false  as  falsehood  could  make  them ; 
but  I  said  not  a  word.    Even  my  Oliurch  attorney 


OUTCOME  OF  THE  SUIT  OF  GOODENOUGH.     275 

was  assailed — ^Judge  Eeynolds — ^wliose  splendid 
ckaracter,  intelleotually  and  morally,  made  him 
very  shadow  as  sunshine;  and  even  he  was  denied 
access  to  the  columns  of  the  Christian  Advocate 
when  misrepresented  by  it,  and  for  defense,  had 
to  resort  to  the  hospitality  of  27ie  Methodist,  of 
New  York,  an  unofficial  paper.  The  combination 
against  the  truth  was  as  compact  as  the  fingers 
of  a  shut  hand  when  the  hand  is  turned  into  a 
fist,  and  that  fist,  as  if  iron-clad,  was  always 
ready  to  strike  whatever  approached  to  an  ex- 
posure of  the  frauds!  But  of  all  the  painful 
things  I  had  to  endure,  the  most  painful  was 
the  apparent  inability — or  something  else — of 
the  Church  to  burst  through  the  combination, 
and  bring  to  the  light  by  a  commission  of  inde- 
pendent and  honest  examiners  the  real  facts. 
That  burnt  me  like  molten  lead.  When  my  own 
Conference  proposed  it,  the  Christian  Advocate 
exclaimed,  "By  what  commission!  Who  shall 
appoint  such  a  commission  and  prescribe  its 
province  and  duties?  To  do  this  is  revolution- 
ary.   It  is  rebellion." 

The  Committee  had  spoken  "officially,"  and 
although  they  had  unanimously  declared  in  their 
first  report  that  there  had  been  "  no  serious  loss  " 
in  one  department  and  "  great  mismanagement " 
and  "serious  loss"  in  another;  and  in  their  sec- 
ond report  "no  loss  or  mismanagement  at  all," 
with  a  minority  reaffirming  the  truth  of  the 
first  report,  and  declaring  it  "a  meagre  state- 
ment "  of  the  real  facts,  that  with  the  Advocate, 


276  OUTCOME  OF  THE  SUIT  OF  GOODENOUGH. 

ended  all  controversy,  and  dissent  from  it  was 
called  a  "  slander  on  the  Church,"  and  "  rebellion 
against  official  authority! "  Who  but  the  guilty 
need  have  feared  an  examination  by  a  commis- 
sion of  honest  men?  I  literally  entreated  for 
the  appointment  of  a  commission  by  the  Bishops 
of  the  Church.  But  the  coverers  of  the  frauds 
were  afraid  to  trust  any  Committee,  and  by 
their  contradictory  reports,  had  put  themselves 
on  trial  before  the  world.  That  explained  the 
Advocate's  cry  of  "  revolution  "  and  "  rebellion," 
for  its  Editor  and  his  Assistant  had  been  among 
the  chief  advisers  of  the  Committee. 

But  what  became  of  the  suit,  founded  upon 
the  sworn-to  complaint  of  S.  J.  Goodenough, 
that  I  had  damaged  his  spotless  character,  and 
injm'ed  him  in  his  business  relations  with  the 
public  to  the  extent  of  |20,000,  with  the  name  of 
W.  H.  DePuy,  in  the  complaint,  as  an  important, 
if  not  chief,  witness?  The  following  facts  an- 
swer that  question,  and  furnish  additional  proof 
that  Goodenough  and  his  supporters  knew  that 
they  could  not  stand  before  any  honest  tribunal, 
civil  or  ecclesiastical. 

A  short  time  after  I  had  returned  to  my  home 
in  Baltimore,  I  received  a  note  from  my  attor- 
neys, stating  that  they  were  notified  that  the 
suit  would  soon  be  called  in  the  court,  and  asking 
if  I  could  be  there?  I  answered  that  upon  notice 
I  would  be  there  promptly.  At  a  later  period, 
my  counsel  ^Tote  me  that  the  plaintiff's  counsel 
were  authorized  to  withdraw  the  suit  if  I  would 


OUTCOME  OF  THE  SUIT  OP  GOODENOUGH.  277 

pay  half  the  costs.  I  replied,  that  I  would  agree 
to  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  would  rather  pay 
all  the  costs  and  have  it  tried. 

Next  I  received  a  letter  from  my  counsel  en- 
closing the  following  from  the  plaintiff's  counsel : 

Brown  and  Estis,  229  Broadway,  New  York. 

January  7th,  1873, 
Messrs.  Brown,  Hall  and  Vanderpool: 

Gentlemen.— Our  proposition  in  the  Goodenough  case  was 
to  discontinue  it  without  the  costs  to  either  party  as  against 
the  other.  No  concessions  were  required  of  either  party. 
We  were  induced  to  advise  our  client  to  take  this  step  by 
gentlemen  in  the  Methodist  Church  who  were  mutual 
friends  to  both  parties,  and  who  claimed  that  the  Church 
would  suffer  by  the  trial  of  the  case,  no  matter  how  it 
might  result. 

We  renew  our  proposition  that  it  may  be  perfectly  under- 
stood. Please  advise  us  whether  the  offer  is  satisfactory, 
and  Oblige  yours  truly, 

BROWN  AND  ESTIS. 

The  above  I  promptly  rejected. 

My  next  information  was  that  the  suit  had 
"gone  by  default."  Of  course  it  cost  Goode- 
nough nothing.  It  was  not  his  suit.  He  had 
been  "  pushed  to  it  by  a  person  high  in  the  Book 
Concern."  The  suit  was  gotten  up  for  a  two- 
fold purpose,  to  make  a  show  of  injured  inno- 
cence, and  frighten  me  into  a  resignation,  or  a 
withdrawal  of  my  charges.  To  have  done  either 
would  have  disgraced  me  in  my  own  eyes,  and 
have  been  a  betrayal  of  the  trust  that  had  been 
committed  to  me  by  my  Church.  I  never  doubt- 
ed that  the  plaintiff's  attorneys  had  been  made 
to  believe  that  "  mutual  friends  of  both  parties  " 


278  OUTCOME  OF  THE  SUIT  OF  GOODENOUGH. 

gave  the  above  advice.  But  I  never  believed 
that  any  of  my  friends  were  among  the  number. 
"Injure  the  Church!"  Injure  sunsliine!  Ah! 
that  was  the  constant  and  convenient  cry  used 
to  divert  attention  and  cover  up  what  had  been, 
through  long  years,  eating  out  the  very  vitals 
of  the  Book  Concern  in  which  the  Church  took 
great  pride,  and  whose  management  she  had  so 
often  lauded  to  the  very  skies,  never  dreaming 
of  the  wrongs  that  were  being  done  under  its 
roof. 


CONCLUSION. 

In  reviewing  this  long  history  the  reader  can- 
not but  be  struck  with  the  varied  changes  of 
my  position.  Beginning  as  a  prosecutor  of  mis- 
management and  fraud,  I  soon  found  myself 
treated  as  a  presumptive  criminal.  I  was  not 
even  credited  with  an  honest,  if  mistaken  pur- 
pose to  discover  the  truth,  but  was  arraigned  as 
an  enemy  to  the  Book  Concern,  and  a  slanderer 
of  its  reputation.  For  five  months  I  was  held 
up  before  the  public  as  guilty  of  "  official  mis- 
conduct," "malfeasance,"  "neglect  of  official 
duty,"  "untruthfulness,"  "irascibility,"  "slan- 
derous disposition,"  "violation  of  jjledges,"  "in- 
subordination," "want  of  business  qualification," 
and  "other  objectionable  personal  characteris- 
tics" w^hich  disqualified  me  for  the  position  of 
Assistant  Book  Agent.  The  public  was  left  to 
guess  what  the  "other  objectionable  character- 
istics" were,  as  if  their  moral  turpitude  made 
them  too  offensive  to  be  described. 

Instead  of  trying  the  guilty  parties,  the  Book 
Committee  made  haste  to  try  me.  I  may  say 
with  truth,  that  the  majority,  so  far  from  dealing 
with  me  as  impartial  judges,  planned  and  la- 
bored to  convict  me.  The  one  thing  uppermost 
in  their  proceedings  was  to  discredit  me  before 
the  world  and  get  me  out  of  the  way.    The  fact 

279 


280  CONCLUSION. 

that  a  respectable  minority  of  their  own  num- 
ber adhered  to  the  conviction  that  my  charges 
were  founded  in  truth,  instead  of  making  them 
pause  in  their  pitiless  persecution,  only  intensi- 
fied their  bitterness  and  impelled  them  to  re- 
newed efforts  to  compass  my  destruction,  shield 
the  defrauders,  and  thus  mislead  the  Methodist 
Episcopal  Church.  The  whole  country  was  scan- 
dalized by  the  efforts  made  to  drag  me  down  and 
ruin  me.  Those  efforts  would  not  have  been 
ventured  but  for  the  confidence  felt  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  Committee  were  in  full  sympathy 
with  them,  and  would  lend  a  willing  ear  to  every 
charge  preferred  against  me. 

That  I  passed  through  those  trials  as  I  did, 
standing  almost  .alone  with  infinite  odds  against 
me,  as  I  now  lot)k  back,  seems  almost  a  miracle 
to  myself.  Hired  spies  followed  me  when  I  left 
my  office,  and  stood  in  front  of  my  door  at  night 
to  ascertain  with  whom  I  was  in  communication. 
Twice  I  was  suspended,  and  once  removed  from 
my  office.  I  was  sued  for  slander  and  cast  into 
prison;  week  after  week,  for  two  years,  I  was 
compelled  to  read  violent  attacks  upon  my  con- 
duct and  motives  in  the  very  paper  which  bore 
my  name  as  one  of  its  publishers,  and  I  not 
permitted  to  utter  a  word  of  explanation  or  de- 
fense, though  its  colunms  were  open  to  eulogi- 
ums  upon  the  defrauders.  Even  my  Conference 
was  maligned  and  denounced  through  the  secu- 
lar press  as  "  infamous,"  by  the  Chairman  of  the 
Book  Committee,  Rev.  B.  F.  Rawlings,  in  the 


CONCLUSION.  281 

card  already  quoted  from  the  Indianapolis  Daily 
Journal,  because  it  did  no  more  than  declare  its 
confidence  in  my  integrity,  and  call  for  an  exami- 
nation of  the  affairs  of  the  Church's  Publishing 
House  by  a  commission  of  laymen  skilled  in  busi- 
ness matters. 

God's  ways  are  dark,  but  soon  or  late 
They  touch  the  shining  hills  of  day; 
The  false  can  poorly  brook  delay. 

The  true  can  well  afford  to  wait. 


APPENDIX  I. 

A  SPECIMEN  OF  FRAUDULENT  TRANS- 
ACTIONS. 

(Referred  to  on  page  109.) 

In  the  second  year  of  the  Book  Room  troubles, 
1871,  Rev.  Dr.  Munsey,  Secretary  of  the  Board 
of  Foreign  Missions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church,  South,  called  at  the  Book  Concern  to 
see  Dr.  Carlton,  who  was  absent.  Dr.  Munsey 
informed  me  that  the  ^object  of  his  visit  was  to 
see  Dr.  Carlton  about  a  large  debt  due  from  the 
Society  which  he  represented.  For  reasons,  I 
asked  no  questions.  He  called  again  the  next 
day,  and  he  and  Dr.  Carlton  retired  to  a  private 
room.  Dr.  Carlton  said  nothing  to  me  about  the 
debt,  or  the  object  of  Dr.  Munsey's  visit.  I  knew 
all  the  officials  of  the  Southern  Church  by  name, 
and  examined  the  account  books  to  ascertain 
whether  the  debt  was  to  the  Book  Concern,  but 
found  no  entry  to  any  of  them.  After  waiting 
several  days  to  see  if  Dr.  Carlton  would  say 
anything  to  me,  I  asked  him  if  the  Church  South 
was  debtor  to  us?  He  replied  that  it  was.  I 
asked  him  if  it  was  entered  on  our  books?  He 
answered  me,  that  it  was.  I  requested  him  to 
show  me  the  entry.  He  proposed  to  do  so  the 
next  day.  My  experience  with  him  and  our  book- 
keeper had  been  such,  that  I  deemed  it  best  not 

282 


Al'PENDIX  I. 


283 


to  let  the  matter  be  delayed  for  a  day.  He 
finally  requested  the  book-keeper  to  "turn  to 
those  Southern  accounts."  The  book-keeper 
opened  the  ledger  to  some  small  accounts  of 
long  standing,  and  then  addressing  me,  said,  if 
I  would  name  the  persons  he  could  easily  find 
the  account.  I  replied  that  Dr.  Carlton  could 
give  him  the  name.  Just  then  a  gentleman  came 
into  tliG  office  of  the  Agents  and  Dr.  Carlton 
quickly  left  me  and  the  book-keeper,  and  went 
to  meet  the  visitor,  and  I  returned  to  my  desk 
no  little  surprised.  In  a  few  minutes.  Dr.  Carl- 
ton again  went  to  the  book-keeper,  and  after 
a  brief  conversation  with  him,  the  latter  inform- 
ed me  that  he  had  found  the  account  I  desired 
to  see,  and  pointed  to  the  following,  which  is  a 
copy  as  it  appeared  on  the  ledger: 

BROWN  BROTHERS  &  Co. 


Dec. 

1862. 
July 
Oct, 


To  Cash, 


fl5,40O 

3.000 
2,500 

20,900 


1862. 
Deo» 

1863. 
Jany. 


31 


By  Cash. 

"  P.  &  L. 


I 
129214 

20,607'86 
20,900,00 


The  above  was  the  only  entry  in  the  books 
until  I  exposed  it. 

Thus  the  ledger  had  been  made  the  book  of 
original  and  exclusive  entry,  something  unheard 
of  in  honest  book-keeping.  I  expressed  surprise 
that  there  should  be  charged  to  one  of  fthe 
wealthiest  banking  fiLrms  in  New  York  a  loss, 
and  asked  if  we  had  anything  to  show  that  the 


284  APPENDIX  I. 

Cliurch  South  was  our  debtor.  Dr.  Carlton  tlien 
produced  several  notes,  drawn  by  William  T. 
Smithson,  Treasurer  of  the  Missionary  Society 
of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South,  dated 
"March  16,  1868,"  payable  in  1871  and  1872, 
respectively.  On  one  of  the  notes  there  was  a 
credit  of  |1,300.00.  I  asked  him  if  that  pay- 
ment had  been  entered  in  our  books?  He  re- 
plied that  it  had  not,  and  that  he  was  "wait- 
ing until  it  was  all  paid."  I  asked  him  if  Mr. 
Smithson's  notes  were  entered  in  our  books? 
He  answered  me  that  they  were  not.  He  did 
not  say  he  was  "waiting  until  they  were  all 
paid."  I  reported  the  facts  to  the  Book  Com- 
mittee, and  requested  an  examination.  Instead 
of  giving  any  attention  to  my  report,  they  re- 
ferred it  to  Dr.  Carlton. 

The  Kev.  A.  W.  Wilson  and  Mr.  T.  J.  Magru- 
der  of  the  Church  South,  appeared  before  the 
Committee,  and  gave  explanations  of  the  debt, 
and  assurances  that  it  would  be  paid,  something 
I  had  never  doubted.  Immediately  after  Messrs. 
Wilson  and  Magruder  left  the  Committee,  Dr. 
Carlton  was  heard  to  say  to  the  latter,  "  Thank 
God,  Magruder,  for  what  you  have  done  for  me 
to-day.  You  have  done  me  the  greatest  service 
in  the  world.  Lanahan  is  now  completely  down, 
and  we  will  keep  him  down.  A  resolution  will 
be  offered  in  the  Committee  exonerating  me 
from  all  blame  and  it  will  pass."  This  was  not 
the  only  instance  in  which  he  knew  what  the 
Committee   would   do  before  it   was   done.    A 


APPENDIX  I.  285 

majority  of  them  were  truly  liis  obedient  serv- 
ants— always  ready  to  do,  or  not  to  do,  what- 
ever w^as  agreeable  to  him.  Fortunately  he  put 
in  writing  without  date,  the  follomng  explana- 
tion of  the  above  transaction: 

To  the  Book  Committee: 

Dear  Brethren. — Some  time  during  the  year  1858  or  1859 
Dr.  Sehon,  Secretary  of  the  Missiouaiy  Society  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South,  called  on  us  to  ascertain 
how  we  made  our  remittances  to  China  for  the  support  of 
our  missionaries  in  that  country.  "We  informed  him  that 
we  procured  letters  of  credit  from  Brown  Brothers  &  Co., 
of  this  city,  on  Brown,  Shipley  &  Co.,  London,  and  that 
upon  these  letters  our  missionaries  could  draw  from  time 
to  time,  as  they  might  need  money  for  their  support,  until 
the  amount  of  the  letters  should  be  exhausted. 

On  December  7,  1859,  Dr.  Sehon  returned  to  the  city, 
visited  Brown  Brothers  &  Co.,  and  on  application  to  them 
for  letters  of  credit  on  which  their  missionaries  might 
draw  for  their  salaries,  was  informed  that  they  would  grant 
their  request,  provided  they  would  procure  the  endorsement 
of  the  Methodist  Book  Concern,  as  the  Missionary  Society 
here  had  been  accustomed  to  do  for  many  years.  A  letter 
of  credit  was  issued,  and  Dr.  Sehon  came  to  the  Book 
Concern  and  requested  the  Book  Agents  to  become  sureties 
for  the  payment  of  the  drafts  that  might  be  drawn  on  said 
letters  of  credit  until  the  amount  was  exhausted. 

The  Agents  having  been  for  many  years  sureties  for  the 
Missionary  Society  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  did 
not  see  how  they  could  consistently  refuse  this  act  of 
brotherly  kindness  to  a  Sister  Church,  especially  as  they 
were  informed  by  the  said  Secretary  that  funds  were  in 
hand  to  meet  all  drafts  that  might  be  drawn  on  the  said 
letters  of  credit,  and  that  the  only  object  was  to  get  them 
to  China.  Under  these  circumstances,  and  in  view  of  the 
sacredness  of  the  cause  to  be  benefited  by  this  act  of 
courtesy,  and  a  feeling  that  there  was  not  the  least  hazard 
in  the  matter,  the  Agents  did  become  sureties  for  the  pay- 
ment of  this,  and  one  or  two  other  letters,  and  up  to  the 
time  that  all  mail  facilities  between  New  York  and  Nash- 


286  APPENDIX  I. 

ville  were  by  the  late  war  suspended,  every  draft  was 
promptly  paid,  and  no  doubt  but  all  other  drafts  would 
have  been  so  promptly  met  but  for  the  afore-mentioned 
circumstances. 

On  the  18th  of  December,  1862,  the  amount  for  which  the 
Book  Concern  was  responsible,  by  the  advance  of  the  price 
of  gold  and  exchange,  was  $20,607.86.  Under  the  then  ex- 
isting circumstances,  your  Agents,  as  they  had  the  money, 
judged  it  best  to  settle  up  the  matter  and  accordingly  paid 
the  above-named  amount. 

Subsequently  to  the  close  of  the  war,  the  said  Missionary 
Society,  by  a  committee  appointed  for  the  purpose,  came 
to  New  York  and  settled  up  the  account  of  principal  and 
interest,  on  which  there  has  been  paid  $7,301.18,  and  but 
for  the  loss  of  the  money  that  was  forwarded  to  meet  one 
of  the  notes  of  $11,000.00,  the  large  portion  of  the  debt 
would  have  been  paid  and  the  whole  matter  settled  by  the 
first  of  April  next. 

The  Agents  honestly  believed  that  in  view  of  the  large 
trade  the  Concern  was  having  with  the  South  at  the  time, 
and  the  friendly  feeling  that  was  constantly  on  the  increase 
toAvard  the  Book  Concern,  that  by  refusing  this  friendly 
act  they  would  do  harm  to  the  interests  of  the  Concern. 
We  may  have  erred  in  judgment,  but  we  acted  as  we 
judged  best  at  the  time;  and  now,  brethren,  we  submit  the 
matter  to  you. 

(Signed)  THOMAS  CARLTON, 

JAMES  PORTER, 

Agents. 

This  remarkable  letter  suggests  several  ques- 
tions : 

1.  As  Dr.  Porter's  connection  with  the  Book  Concern  had 
ended  nearly  two  years  before  the  letter  was  written,  is  it 
at  all  probable  that  he  signed  it  as  one  of  the  "Agents"? 
I  never  believed  that  he  ever  saw  the  letter,  or  had  any 
knowledge  of  the  transaction  to  which  it  related.  The  facts 
prove  the  latter,  at  least. 

2.  Was  Dr.  Sehon  so  uninformed  that  he  had  to  go  from 
his  office  in  Nashville,  Tennessee,  to  the  Book  Concern,  at 
New  York,  to  learn  how  to  send  money  to  missionaries  in 


APPENDIX  I.  287 

China?  He  was  not  a  novice  in  such  matters.  That  was 
not  the  first  time  he  had  arranged  to  send  money  to  mis- 
sionaries in  China. 

3.  If  "  funds  were  in  hand  to  meet  the  drafts  that  might 
be  drawn,"  would  not  their  deposit  with  Brown  Brothers 
have  been  better  than  any  other  security,  and  could  not 
the  matter  have  been  arranged  through  any  banlc  in  Nash- 
ville, and  thus  obviate  the  necessity  of  Dr.  Sehon  going 
to  New  York  "  to'  ascertain  how  we  made  our  remittances 
to  China  for  the  support  of  our  missionaries  "  ? 

The  facts  are  in  direct  conflict  with  the  state- 
ments of  the  letter.  The  loan  was  not  made 
"December  7,  1859,"  but  in  December,  1862, 
when  the  war  was  raging  between  the  North 
and  the  South.  As  to  "  the  large  trade  the  Con- 
cern was  having  with  the  South  at  that  time, 
and  the  friendly  feeling  that  was  constantly  on 
the  increase  toward  the  Book  Concern,"  I  need 
say  nothing.  But  "in  view  of  the  sacredness 
of  the  cause"  that  was  "benefited,"  and  the 
more  sacred  duty  of  the  Agents  (Agent)  to  make 
truthful  reports  to  the  Church  of  the  use  made 
of  its  property,  was  it  not  a  breach  of  trust  to 
allow  two  General  Conferences  to  pass  and  no 
report  of,  nor  even  allusion  to  the  transaction 
be  made?  Not  only  so,  but  two  former  Book 
Committees  knew  not  of  it.  And  the  famous 
one  that  tried  to  cover  me  with  odium,  kne^ 
nothing  about  it,  until  I  brought  it  before  them. 
But  this  is  not  all — when  the  loan  was  made, 
in  1862,  notes  were  given — ^not  to  "  Carlton  and 
Porter,  Agents," — ^but  to  Thomas  Carlton;  and 
that  the  Church  South  regarded  it  as  a  personal 
loan  from  Dr.  Carlton,  is  made  evident  by  the 


288  .  APPENDIX  I. 

following  letter  from  the  Treasurer  of  the  Mis- 
sionary Society  of  that  Church: 

Nashville,  Tenn.,  Feb.  2,  1872. 
Rev.  Thomas  Carlton,  D.  D. : 

Dear  Brother.— It  afEords  me  pleasure  to  inform  you  that 
I  paid  this  morning  the  balance  due  you  by  the  Board  of 
Missions  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  South,  for 
money  advanced  by  you  for  our  Missions  in  China  several 
years  ago.  ...  I  cannot  close  this  letter  without  returning 
you  our  sincere  thanks  for  your  great  kindness  for  pro- 
tecting our  China  Mission  at  a  time  when  it  was  beyond 
our  power  to  do  so;  and  for  the  long  and  patient  forbearance 
you  have  shown  in  reference  to  the  refunding  of  the  money 
on  our  part.  Yours  truly, 

A.  H.  BEDFORD,  Treasurer. 

Not  a  word  of  thanks  to  Carlton  and  Porter, 
Agents,  of  the  Book  Concern;  nor  to  the  Metho- 
dist Episcopal  Church,  whose  money  was  loaned. 
"Why?  Because  Dr.  Bedford  supposed  the  debt 
of  gratitude  was  due  to  Dr.  Carlton  alone,  "for 
the  great  kindness"  he  had  shown  by  loaning 
the  money  out  of  his  own  large  fortune,  accumu- 
lated during  his  Agency  in  the  Book  Concern. 

One  of  the  Bishops  of  the  Southern  Church, 
when  appealing  to  the  Kentucky  Conference, 
then  in  session  at  Covington,  Ky.,  in  1872,  to 
assist  in  raising  the  money,  stated  that  it  was 
"  a  debt  of  honor  due  a  friend  in  New  York,  who 
advanced  the  money  during  the  late  war."  Was 
that  in  "December,  1859?" 

I  have  narrated  the  particulars  of  this  case  for 
several  reasons,  among  them  the  following: 

1st.  To  show  how  the  Committee  received  and  treated  the 
grave  matters  I  officially  presented.    The  above  case  they 


APPENDIX  I.  289 

referred  to  Dr.  Carlton,  the  person  implicated,  and  his  letter 
was  pronounced  satisfactory,  and  his  act  was  approved 
without  asking  him  a  single  question.  This  they  called 
"  examining."  So  in  the  cases  of  Goodenough  and  Hoff- 
man, their  denials  of  their  falsehoods  and  thefts  had  more 
weight  than  my  presentation  of  facts  corroborated  by 
numerous  respectable  witnesses. 

2d.  To  shoAv  how  the  official  press  Avas  used  to  pervert 
facts,  mislead  the  Church  and  damage  me.  In  the  preced- 
ing part  of  this  narrative,  I  have  stated  that  the  Book  Com- 
mittee requested  me  to  furnish  a  synopsis  of  the  long 
report  I  had  presented  at  their  first  meeting.  As  they  had 
not  even  looked  at  that  report,  I  had  the  synopsis  printed 
and  gave  each  member  of  the  Committee  a  copy,  hoping 
they  Avould  examine  the  facts  I  referred  to  as  evidence  of 
my  statements,  but  they  did  not. 

The  following  is  what  the  synopsis  said  of  the 
above  transaction: 

In  my  investigation  thus  far,  I  have  made  but  a  limited 
examination  of  the  general  account-books  of  the  office;  but 
in  the  examination  made,  I  have  discovered  several  entries 
to  Avhich,  in  my  opinion,  the  attention  of  the  Committee 
should  be  called. 
One  entry  is  as  follows: 

Brown  Brothers  &  Co.  to  Carlton  &  Porter: 

December  9,  1861,  to  cash $15,400 

July  31,  1802,  to  cash 3,000 

October  21,  1862,  to  cash 2,500 


$20,900 

December  31,  1862,  by  cash $292.14 

Jan.  1,  1863,  by  profit  and  loss.  .   $20,607.86  =  $20,900 

It  is  well  known  that  the  house  of  Brown  Brothers  &  Co. 
is  one  of  the  wealthiest  in  New  York.  Such  an  entry  was 
therefore  more  than  improper. 

I  have  learned  from  Dr.  Carlton  that  the  Agents  of  the 
Book  Concern  guaranteed  letters  of  credit  from  Brown 
Brothers  &  Co.  in  favor  of  the  Missionary  Society  of  the 
Methodist  Episcopal  Church  South,  which  they  had  to  pay, 


290  APPENDIX  I. 

yet  it  does  not  appear  that  any  charge  is  made  upon  the 
books  of  the  Concern  to  the  proper  representative  or  officers 
of  that  Society,  but  the  amount  is  charged  to  Brown  Broth- 
ers &  Co.  in  1862,  and  in  18G3  charged  off  to  profit  and  loss, 
where  it  lias  stood  for  about  seven  years. 

March  16,  1868,  Mr.  Smithson,  Treasurer  of  tlie  Mission- 
ary Society  of  the  Oliurch  South,  gave  his  notes  for  the 
aggregate  sum,  yet  no  record  of  these  notes  appear  on 
the  boolis  of  the  Concern.  In  March,  1869,  $1,300  was  paid 
on  these  notes,  but  of  tliat  payment  no  entry  was  made, 
nor  has  any  report  of  these  matters  been  given  to  the  Book 
Committee,  or  appeared  in  any  exhibit  made  to  the  Church. 

March  10,  1870,  the  Christian  Advocate  repub- 
lished a  long  editorial  from,  the  Western  Advo- 
cate, headed  "Dr.  Lanahan's  Statement."  The 
Western  garbled  the  above  by  quoting  only 
these  words :  "  It  is  well  known  that  the  house 
of  Brown  Brothers  &  Co.  is  one  of  the  wealthiest 
in  New  York.  Such  an  entry  was,  therefore, 
more  than  improper."  After  charging  me  with 
intending  to  "  deceive  the  reader  "  of  my  synop- 
sis, the  Western  said: 

What  will  the  reader  think,  when  told  that  the  writer 
and  every  member  of  the  Committee  knew  perfectly  well 
that  the  wealth  of  Brown  Brothers  had  nothing  to  do 
with  the  transaction  whatever?  Brown  Brothers  were  the 
bankers  of  certain  parties  in  the  South  who  did  business 
with  the  Book  Concern  through  the  bank,  and  who  fell  in 
debt  to  the  Concern  at  the  beginning  of  the  war.  As  the 
war  advanced,  all  communication  with  the  South  was  cut 
ofC,  and  it  looked  to  the  Agents  as  if  the  claim  was  lost. 
In  closing  the  books  for  the  year,  they  charged  the  amount 
to  profit  and  loss,  and  credited  the  bank,  and  the  book- 
keeper, now  dead,  omitted  to  make  a  full  explanation  of 
the  transaction,  indicating  the  parties  doing  business 
through  the  bank.    This  is  all  there  is  in  the  case. 

We  give  the  above  as  an  example  of  the  character  of  the 
document  and  of  the  explanation  that  came  to  the  Com- 


APPENDIX  I.  291 

mittee.  We  know  nothing  of  the  intention  of  the  authorities 
in  the  case,  but  if  the  Book  Committee  does  not  take  prompt 
action  to  vindicate  itself,  and  to  ascertain  where  the  re- 
sponsibility for  the  publication  of  this  mischievous  docu- 
ment lies,  our  confidence  in  its  watchfulness  of  the  interests 
of  the  Church  will  be  greatly  diminished. 

Could  a  more  misleading-  statement  have  been 
made?  As  to  "the  responsibility  for  the  pub- 
lication of  the  mischievous  document,"  there  was 
no  difficulty  in  ascertaining  that,  as  it  was  sign- 
ed "J.  Lanahan,"  and  had  been  officially  laid 
before  the  Book  Committee.  The  evident  pur- 
pose of  the  Western  Advocate  was  to  make  the 
impression  that  it  had  been  anonymously  pub- 
lished. If  that  paper  had  given  its  readers  the 
above  brief  extract  from  "  the  mischievous  docu- 
ment," they  could  have  judged  of  the  propriety 
of  my  laying  it  before  the  Committee.  It  had 
published  Goodenough's  long  denial  of  the 
frauds  he  had  committed,  and  a  long  statement 
from  his  attorneys  in  the  civil  suit,  but  not  a 
word  from  me,  except  the  above  garbled  state- 
ment with  those  misleading  comments. 

But  this  is  not  all — the  Western  not  only  per- 
verted the  facts  in  regard  to  Brown  Brothers, 
but  also  in  regard  to  "the  book-keeper,  now 
dead,"  who  manifestly  made  the  entry  in  the 
ledger,  by  the  direction  of  the  Agents  (Agent), 
and  made  it  as  I  have  given  it.  The  book-keep- 
er, Mr.  J.  B.  Edwards,  died  April  10th,  1862 
(see  Christian  Advocate,  April  17,  1862,  for  an 
account  of  his  funeral).  Here  is  additional  evi- 
dence that  the  loan  was  made  in  1862,  and  not 


292  APPENDIX  I. 

in  "  1859,"  as  stated  in  Dr.  Carlton's  letter.  Was 
the  Book  Concern  "  then  having  a  large  trade 
with  the  South  "  ? 

Thus  it  appears  that  |20,900  was  taken  out 
of  the  funds  of  the  Book  Concern  and  kept  out 
seven  years  without  the  knowledge  of  three 
Book  Committees,  and  two  General  Conferences 
which  intervened. 

One  other  remark  is  needed.  Kepresentatives 
of  the  Church  South  were  told  that  my  com- 
plaint about  the  loan  of  the  |20,900,  was  because 
it  was  to  their  Church,  and  that  I  alleged  that 
the  money  was  used  in  Missouri  and  Southern 
Kansas.  I  said  not  a  word  about  that  Church, 
nor  about  the  use  made  of  the  money,  except 
that  the  loan  was  made  to  it  through  its  repre- 
sentative, Eev.  Dr.  Selion  and  improperly  enter- 
ed in  the  accounts  of  the  Book  Concern,  as  due 
from  Brown  Brothers  &  Co.,  and  then  charged 
off  as  a  loss,  and  that  no  report  of  the  transac- 
tion had  ever  been  made  to  any  authority,  or 
representative  of  the  Methodist  Episcopal 
Church.  In  that,  as  in  all  other  matters,  I  con- 
fined myself  strictly  to  what  belonged  to  my 
duties  as  a  trusted  officer  and  servant  of  my 
Church. 


APPENDIX  II. 

ACTION    OF    THE    BALTIMORE    CONFER- 
ENCE AND  DR.  SLICER'S  ACCOUNT  OF 
THE  CONDUCT   OF   THE   BOOK 
COMMITTEE. 

The  Baltimore  Annual  Conference  met  in 
Frederick,  Md.,  March  1,  1870.  Advance  copies 
of  the  Christian  Advocate  were  sent  to  the  Con- 
ference, in  which  was  the  following  editorial, 
double  leaded.  The  Editor,  Dr.  Daniel  Curry, 
subsequently  stated  to  the  Book  Committee  that 
it  was  written  by  his  Assistant,  W.  H.  DePuy, 
and  that  he  had  "  not  reproved  him  for  writing 
it."  But  for  it  the  Book  Room  controversy  would 
not  have  been  referred  to  in  the  Conference: 

BOOK  CONCERN  AFFAIRS— CAUTION. 

"We  have  before  us  in  "  fly-sheet  "  form  a  printed  document 
signed  "  J.  Lanahan,"  purijorting  to  be  a  "  Statement  to 
the  Book  Committee  "  at  its  recent  session.  The  document, 
with  some  material  modifications,  appeared  in  the  Baltimore 
American*  of  last  Aveek,  and  extra  copies  of  that  paper  con- 
taining it,  we  are  informed,  were  scattered  abroad.  Vigor- 
ous efCoi-ts,  we  presume,  are  to  be  made  to  send  the  incen- 
diary document  over  the  Avhole  country.  The  motive  and 
purpose  of  the  persons  engaged  in  this  infamous  business 
are  apparent.    We  may  refer  to  them  hereafter.    We  men- 

*  The  statement  that  it  appeared  in  the  Bahimore  American  or 
any  other  paper  is  absolutely  false. 

293 


294  APPENDIX  11. 

tion  the  matter  now  to  caution  our  readers  and  the  public 
generally  against  placing  any  confidence  in  the  damaging 
allegations  therein  contained.  They  were  all  before  the 
Bock  Committee,  thoroughly  traversed,  and  found  to  be 
groundless. 

Upon  the  arrival  of  the  Christian  Advocate,  I 
moved  a  reconsideration  of  the  passage  of  my 
character  and  the  reference  of  it  and  the  above 
to  a  committee,  which  was  done.  After  refer- 
ring to  the  fact  that  the  Book  Committee  had 
made  two  reports  to  the  Chnrch,  and  the  further 
fact  that  a  dissenting  report  liad  been  made  by 
a  minority  of  said  Committee,  the  Committee 
thus  appointed  say: 

Your  committee  also  think  that,  whatever  may  be  the 
final  decision,  it  must  be  evident  that  a  state  of  facts  which 
justified  the  November  declaration  of  "  great  mismanage- 
ment "  and  "  serious  losses  "  certainly  justified  the  Junior 
Agent  in  pushing  his  investigations.  If  there  were  grounds 
for  that  judgment,  the  duty  of  the  Book  Agents  was  mani- 
fest; there  could  be  no  justification  for  a  neglect  to  make 
an  examination  thorough,  searching  and  sifting.  The  ma- 
jority report  refer  the  examinations  and  the  demand  for 
rigid  scrutiny  to  the  Assistant  Agent.  They  say:  "  The 
Assistant  Agent  had  felt  it  to  be  his  duty  to  look  into  the 
affairs  of  the  Concern,  and  had  come  to  entertain  appre- 
hensions that  there  had  existed  frauds  resulting  in  heavy 
losses."  We  believe  the  Chxn-ch  will,  for  this  vigilance  and 
zeal  on  the  part  of  the  Junior  Agent,  hold  him  in  grateful 
remembrance  and  high  appreciation. 

The  conclusions  of  the  majority  report  are  not  only  in 
opposition  to  those  of  the  November  report,  in  several  vital 
points,  but  are  in  direct  conflict  with  the  conclusions  of  the 
minority  report.  The  majority  report  gives  no  evidence. 
It  assumes  that  it  did  examine  all  the  testimony  carefully, 
and  presents  its  conclusions,  but  withholds  the  testimony. 
It  does  not  even  give  an  outline  of  the  evidence,  but  states 
that   its  conclusions   were   reached   "  after  two  weeks   of 


APPENDIX  n.  295 

thorough  search  for  truth."  This  is  not  questioned  by  us, 
nor  do  we  disci-edit  the  integrity  or  ability  of  those  reverend 
brethren;  but  we  are  compelled  to  say  that  their  conclusions 
are  insufficient  without  evidence. 

At  this  point  we  turn  to  the  minority  report.  This  dis- 
sents from  the  positions  of  the  majority.  With  the  same 
facts  and  testimony  before  them,  the  signers  of  the  minority 
report  declare  that  nothing  has  been  offered  relieving  their 
convictions  of  losses  and  mismanagement  as  set  forth  in 
the  November  report. 

They  declare  that  the  evidence  convinced  them  that  the 
system  of  purchasing  supplies  was  discreditable  and  dam- 
aging. They  present  testimony  which  seems  to  be  strong 
and  entitled  to  great  weight.  They  affirm  that  suflicient 
rebutting  testimony  was  not  offered  to  set  aside  the  evi- 
dence above  named.  They  declare  their  deliberate  judg- 
ment that  losses  very  serious  have  occurred,  and  that  mis- 
management has  existed. 

The  majority  report  does  not  impeach  the  testimony 
offered  by  the  minority.  It  says  in  the  supplementary  reso- 
lutions that  the  "  letters  and  allegations  are  by  no  means 
full,  and  are,  therefore,  inconclusive  ";  but  what  of  them 
as  far  as  they  do  testify?  It  says  they  were  "traversed," 
but  does  not  say  they  were  disproved. 

The  minority  report  gives  us  an  outline  of  the  testimony 
upon  which  it  relies;  the  majority  asks  us  to  simply  accept 
its  conclusions,  and^that  solely  upon  faith  in  its  judgment. 
The  matter  is  too  grave  for  that,  especially  when  its  judg- 
ment differs  so  widely  in  November  and  February.  In  the 
name  of  the  Church,  in  the  name  of  our  honored  Book 
Concern,  we  ask  for  the  facts  as  they  ai*e  presented  in 
evidence.  We  ask  entire  frankness,  and  believe  conceal- 
ment a  mistake  of  the  gravest  character. 

We  know  full  well  that  in  conducting  the  business  of  so 
large  an  establishment,  with  so  many  departments  and 
employees,  it  is  not  possible  to  prevent  all  irregularities; 
but  an  irreparable  damage  will  be  done  if  the  Church,  or 
any  considerable  part  of  it,  shall  believe  that  "  great  mis- 
management "  exists  and  is  concealed.  Indeed,  the  credit 
of  our  great  Publishing  House  is  gone  hopelessly  in  the 
hour  that  the  Church  believes  that  one  of  her  own  chosen 
officers  encounters  obstruction  in  official  investigations  he 
attempts  to  make. 


296  APPENDIX  II. 

In  conclusion,  Ave  offer  the  following  resolutions: 

1.  Resolved,  That  in  our  judgment,  the  doubt  and  dis- 
satisfaction of  the  Church  cannot  be  removed  until  the 
Church  is  put  in  possession  of  the  facts  as  shown  in  the 
testimony. 

2.  Resolved,  That  in  view  of  conflicting  statements  which 
have  been  given  to  the  Church  and  the  public  from  the 
Book  Committee  in  the  reports  heretofore  published,  there- 
fore, Ave  recommend  a  thorough  examination,  by  commis- 
sion or  otherwise,  in  advance  of  the  General  Conference, 
if  possible;  if  not  before,  then  under  its  direction,  and  that 
such  iuA-estigation  shall  extend  at  least  over  the  time  cov- 
ered by  the  "  consolidated  exhibit  "  contained  in  the  "  ex- 
hibit of  the  Methodist  Book  Concerns,"  which  folloAA-s  the 
"  annual  report  of  the  Book  Committee." 

3.  Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  the  Church  are  due  the 
minority  of  the  Book  Committee  for  respecting  the  call  of 
the  Church  for  facts,  and  also  for  asserting  the  right  of  the 
minority  to  report  to  the  Conferences,  and  thus  giving  an 
additional  guarantee  to  the  Church  for  the  future  integrity, 
economy  and  safety  of  our  great  publishing  interest. 

ResolA'ed,  That  having  carefully  investigated  the  facts 
connected  with  the  publication  of  the  "  statement  to  the 
Book  Committee,"  made  by  Rev.  John  Lanahan,  D.  D., 
Assistant  Book  Agent  at  Ncaa-  York,  Ave  find  nothing  to 
implicate  his  moral  or  ministerial  character,  and  therefore 
do  noAv  recommend  that  his  character  pass. 

T.  M.  EDDY,  Chairman. 
JOS.  B.  STITT,  Secretary. 
W.  B.  EDWARDS, 
GEO.  HILDT, 
L.  F.  MORGAN, 
B.  P.  BROWN, 
A.  R.  REILEY. 

Upon  the  presentation  of  the  report,  a  part 
of  which  is  given  above,  I  addressed  the  Con- 
ference and  was  followed  by  Dr.  Henry  Slicer, 
whose  remarks  were  reported  in  the  Baltimore 
American.    Addressing  the  chair,  he  said: 

A  few  words,  sir,  Avitli  regard  to  the  manner  in  Avliich  the 
minority  report  got  into  the  secular  press.    AVhen  Ave  had 


ArrENDix  n.  297 

presented  our  report,  and  It  had  been  rejected,  we  held  a 
meeting  and  concluded  not  to  throw  it  before  the  public 
through  the  secular  press,  but  through  the  first  occurring 
Annual  Conference.  Next  morning,  sir,  I  came  out  of  my 
room  into  the  study  of  Mr.  Daniel  Drew,  with  whom  I 
lodged,  and  he  handed  me  the  New  York  Tribune,  saying, 
"  Here  is  the  report  of  the  majority  of  the  Book  Committee." 
I  thought  it  was  no  time,  sir,  to  mince  matters  when  the 
majority  could  not  even  wait  for  the  official  paper,  and  I 
sent  word  to  Bro.  Vernon,  the  Secretary,  who  had  the 
minority  report,  that  he  should  give  it  at  once  to  the  secular 
press.  "Will  you  take  the  responsibility?"  said  he.  I  an- 
swered, "  Yes,  sir;  these  gentlemen  are  in  hot  haste  to 
employ  the  secular  press  against  the  minority,  and  they 
shall  have  their  fill  of  it.  If  there  is  anything  wrong  in  the 
minority  report  being  published  in  the  secular  press,  just 
put  it  upon  my  head,  I  can  stand  it."  Never  in  luy  life,  sir, 
did  I  stop  to  ask,  "  What  is  popular? "  I  ask.  What  is 
right?  and  when  I  see  the  right,  I  will  do  it,  though  the 
heavens  fall.  So  have  I  acted  in  this  matter,  and  so  shall 
I  continue  to  act,  in  the  firm  conviction  that  the  Church  will 
demand  that  these  wrongs  be  righted. 

I  found  myself  compelled,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  be  in  New 
Y'ork  in  the  month  of  February,  against  my  judgment,  to 
renew  an  investigation  over  which  two  weeks  had  been 
spent  last  November,  at  large  expense  to  the  Church  and 
great  inconvenience  to  the  work.  Two  members  of  that 
Committee,  with  myself,  Drs.  Pike  and  Vernon,  thought  it 
our  conscientious  duty  to  reiterate  in  February  what  we 
had  said  in  November,  and  not  to  stultify  ourselves  before 
the  Church  and  the  American  people. 

The  Book  Committee  required  Dr.  Lanahan  to  make  his 
communications  in  writing,  and  although  he  complied,  the 
Senior  Agent,  Dr.  Carlton,  although  required  to  do  the 
same,  never  furnished  an  item,  but  when  the  overwhelming 
statement  of  Dr.  Lanahan  was  read,  got  up  and  said  that 
he  had  no  written  statement,  and  could  not  refute  the 
statements  of  his  colleague.  The  truth  is,  he  was  over- 
whelmed, as  were  the  members  of  the  Committee,  by  the 
startling  facts  presented  and  the  evidence  sustaining  them. 
Now,  sir,  what  do  we  see?  The  editor  of  an  official  paper 
throwing  his  iron  flail  at  one  of  the  publishers  of  the  paper, 
the  Junior  Agent,  and  attempting  to  put  do^A'n  the  minority 


298  APPENDIX  II. 

of  the  Committee  who  honestly  spoke  of  their  sentiments 
to  the  Church.  It  is  about  time,  sir,  that  the  editors  were 
taught  tliat  they  are  not  the  proprietors  of  the  General 
Conference  papers,  but  simply  the  servants  of  the  Church. 

It  is  represented  to  the  country  that  the  Boole  Committee 
accepted  the  i-eport  of  the  minority,  which  is  contrary  to 
the  truth,  for  they  rejected  it  by  a  vote  of  eight  to  foiu*; 
and  afterwards,  when  they  proposed  to  reconsider  it,  I  just 
reached  my  hand  to  the  Secretary's  table  and  put  the  report 
in  my  breast  pocket.  Finding  they  were  in  a  trap,  "  Mr. 
Chairman,"  said  one,  "  I  move  a  reconsideration  of  the  vote 
in  order  to  have  the  document  sealed  up  Avith  the  rest  of 
the  papers  and  sent  forward  to  the  General  Conference." 
I  saw  then  that  they  wanted  to  get  by  the  day  of  judg- 
ment; and  after  they  had  shown  their  hand,  I  got  up  and 
said:  "  Mr.  Chairman,  I  hardly  think  it  worth  while  for 
brethren  to  spend  their  time  in  reconsidering  Avhat  is  not 
before  them.  You  had  a  paper  before  you,  but  you  kicked 
it  out,  and  I  now  give  you  notice  that  you  will  meet  it  at 
the  Annual  Conferences." 

I  had  tried,  sir,  in  every  possible  way  to  get  in  the 
minority  report,  and  said:  "  Yon  will  certainly,  as  Christian 
gentlemen,  extend  the  same  courtesy  to  us  that  the  Supreme 
Court  extends  to  a  minority  of  that  body."  But  I  had  just 
as  well  whistled  to  a  whirlwind  or  talked  to  a  tornado. 
The  minority  were  treated  in  this  unfair  manner  all  through 
the  examination;  but  as  I  had  gone  there  against  my  wishes, 
I  determined  to  stay  and  see  the  end,  regardless  of  the 
wrongs  I  witnessed.  And  now,  sir,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say, 
that  if  you  fail  to  put  the  mark  of  this  Conference  upon 
the  proceedings  in  this  case,  and  upon  the  editors  of  this 
paper  (the  Christian  Advocate),  no  man  who  goes  hereafter 
to  that  Book  Concern  will  dare  to  unearth  any  amount  of 
defalcation  and  fraud  that  may  occur,  though  it  be  as 
black  as  night. 

If  you  do  not  intend  to  stand  by  a  conference  member  in 
this  affair,  you  need  not  expect  that  any  man  will  have 
backbone  enough,  in  the  responsible  position  of  Book  Agent, 
to  reveal  any  amount  of  wickedness  and  wrong  that  may 
come  to  his  knowledge.  Why,  sir,  after  the  adoption  of 
the  majority  report,  the  committee  did  solemnly,  upon  the 
motion  of  one  of  its  members,  adopt  a  resolution— by  the 


APPENDIX  n.  299 

same  vote  that  passed  the  majority  report — declaring  that 
hereafter  no  investigation  sliould  be  permitted  which  ex- 
tended back  of  the  first  day  of  December,  1869;  so  that 
what  they  did  see,  they  glossed  over;  and  what  they  did 
not  see,  they  covered  up.    What  does  such  action  mean? 

Question  by  Rev.  B.  P.  Brown.— Was  there  a  single  mem- 
ber of  the  Committee  representing  the  minority  placed  upon 
the  Sub-committee  to  draft  the  report  to  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences? 

Answer.— Not  one;  nor  on  the  Committee  to  draft  the 
report  to  General  Conference.  The  minority  were  treated 
as  if  they  had  no  rights  in  the  Committee.  When  the  lawyer 
was  brought  in  (E.  L.  Fancher),  Bro.  Pike,  of  the  New 
Hampshire  Conference,  and  myself  entered  a  written  pro- 
test against  liis  coming,  but  it  amounted  to  nothing.  Some 
of  the  Committee  seemed  more  anxious  to  get  the  Assistant 
Agent  out  of  the  way  by  suspending  him,  than  they  were 
to  investigate  the  facts  which  he  laid  before  them.  I  hope 
never  to  witness  a  repetition  of  the  scenes  enacted  in  that 
Committee. 

Commenting  on  the  endorsement  of  my  char- 
acter by  the  Baltimore  Conference,  the  Christian 
Advocate  said:  "To  an  uninformed  looker-on 
the  action  was  calculated  to  suggest  the  suspi- 
cion that  somebody's  conduct  stood  in  need  of 
defense,  just  as  the  use  of  felt  and  pitch  implies 
that  the  house  roof  stands  in  need  of  patching." 
The  editor  was  not  present  at  the  Conference, 
but  his  readers  would  infer  that  he  was.  If  only 
a  tithe  of  what  the  Advocate  and  the  Book  Com- 
mittee said  and  did  were  true,  my  character 
needed  vastly  more  than  "patching." 

The  action  of  the  Conference  also  stirred  anew 
the  indignation  of  Eev.  B.  F.  Rawlings,  Chair- 
man of  the  Book  Committee,  who  published  in 
the  Indianapolis  Daily  Journal,  the  following, 


300  APPENDIX  II. 

which  some  called  "A  Proclamation  of  commen- 
dation to  the  New  York  Preachers'  Meeting,  and 
of  warning  to  all  dissentients:" 

Indianapolis,  March  17th,  1870. 
To  the  New  York  Preachers'  Meeting: 

Brethren. — The  action  of  the  New  Yorli  Preachers'  Meet- 
ing on  the  Booli  Concern  and  Book  Committee  has  gone 
over  all  the  country,  and  will  have  a  salutary  effect,  as  the 
utterance  of  men  on  the  ground,  and  who  know  somewhat 
whereof  they  speak. 

The  action  of  the  Baltimore  Conference  is  unexampled 
in  Methodist  histoi-y,  and  ought  to  be  branded  as  infamous, 
as  it  doubtless  will  be,  throughout  our  connection. 

It  seems  to  me  it  is  time  now  to  hold  men  to  account, 
particularly  Methodist  preachers,  who  persist  in  slandering 
the  Concern— no  difference  who  they  are,  nor  what  position 
they  hold. 

Because  some  man  or  men  have  attempted  to  blast  the 
Concern,  and  ignomiuiously  failed,  shall  the  Annual  Con- 
ferences pass  resolutions  of  condolence?    Shame!  shame! 
Yours  truly,  B.  F.  RAWLINGS. 

Does  not  the  above  look  like  an  attempt  to 
institute  a  reign  of  terror?  I  was  told  at  the 
time  that  the  New  York  Preachers'  Meeting 
adopted  a  resolution  of  censure  upon  me,  and 
that  the  person!  who  offered  it  said:  "Lanahan 
must  be  crushed  out  for  slandering  the  Book 
Concern."  Certainl}^  no  means  were  left  untried 
except  physical  torture.  I  judge  there  is  a  tor- 
ture severer  than  physical — one  that  leaves  a 
scar  without  a  wound.  Such  scar  I  have  carried 
in  silence  more  than  twenty  years,  and  unless 
the  Church  shall  compel  an  honest  investigation 
of  the  long  continued  frauds  in  her  publishing 
house — if  permitted,  I  will  show  that  scar  before 
the  throne  of  God. 


APPENDIX  II.  301 

The  MetJwdist,  of  New  York,  an  unofficial 
paper,  owned  by!  some  of  the  chiefest  laymen  of 
Methodism,  and  edited  by  Kev.  Dr.  Geo.  E. 
Crooks,  now  professor  in  Drew  Theological 
Seminary,  said  of  the  "  Rawlings  Proclamation : " 

From  various  sources  which  are  entitled  to  credit,  we 
learn  that  the  "  Methodist  preachers  "  who  are  to  be  held 
to  account  for  their  opinion  of  the  management  of  the 
Book  Concern,  "  no  difference  what  position  they  hold," 
are  the  bishops.  The  Chairman  also  takes  it  upon  him  to 
'■  brand "  the  proceedings  of  an  Annual  Conference  as 
"  infamous."  This  is  something  new  in  Methodist  history; 
it  is  decidedly  autocratic.  The  Baltimore  Conference 
adopted  a  temperate  report  asserting  the  right  of  the  mi- 
nority of  the  Book  Committee  to  declare  their  opinion  of 
the  condition  of  the  Book  Concern  to  the  Church.  They 
also  adopted  resolutions  refusing  to  send  their  Sunday- 
school  collections  to  the  present  Treasurer  of  the  Sunday- 
School  Union  (S.  J.  Goodenough).  These  may  or  may  not 
have  been  judicious,  but  were  clearly  within  their  right. 
It  is  the  prerogative  of  the  people  who  give  money  to 
charitable  uses  to  have  something  to  say  about  disbursing 
agents. 

Are  we  to  understand  that  the  Book  Committee  will  try 
an  Annual  Conference?  Will  they  arraign  bishops?  Will 
they  suppress  the  minority  of  their  associates?  Is  it  within 
tne  province  of  the  chairman  to  apprise  bishops  that  if  the 
Committee  meet  again,  episcopal  conduct  may  be  inquired 
into?  Will  they  suppress  liberty  of  thought  and  speech? 
If  they  can  do  all  this,  we  have  indeed  fallen  upon  evil 
times,  and  Methodists  may  well  ask  to  what  we  are  coming. 

The  above  is  further  evidence  that  the  con- 
spiracy against  the  Bishops  was  a  matter  of 
public  notoriety.  For  demanding  a  fair  and  full 
investigation  of  the  charges  of  mismanagement 
and  fraud,  Dr.  Crooks  was  also  bitterly  assailed 
and  he  was  held  up  to  public  reproach,  as  an 
enemy  of  the  Book  Concern,  and  an  effort  was 


302  APPENDIX  II. 

made — which  utterly  failed — to  have  him  re- 
moved from  his  editorial  chair.  The  whole 
Church  owes  him  a  debt  of  gratitude  of  which 
it  has  no  conception.  His  noble  defense  of  the 
truth  has  made  his  very  name  to  me  "as  oint- 
ment poured  forth,"  and  sweet  as  the  breath 
of  a  rose. 


APPENDIX  III. 

A  QUESTION  ANSWEEED. 

I  have  frequently  been  asked  how  the  Book 
Concern  could  stand  the  great  and  long  con- 
tinued losses  I  have  estimated  to  have  resulted 
from  mismanagement  and  frauds,  and  at  the 
same  time  add  to  its  capital,  pay  the  salaries 
of  the  Bishops,  General  Conference  appropria- 
tions, dividends  to  Annual  Conferences,  defici- 
encies in  General  Conference  expenses,  etc.,  etc? 
In  answering  these  questions,  several  important 
matters  must  be  kept  in  mind.  Among  them, 
that  one-third  of  the  expenses  of  the  Bishops 
and  deficiencies  of  General  Conference  expenses 
were  paid  by  the  Western  Book  Concern.  Also, 
that  the  Concern  had  a  complete  monopoly  of 
a  valuable  class  of  books,  several  periodicals 
of  large  circulation,  a  permanent  and  large 
denominational  patronage,  and  open  access  to 
the  general  public  in  common  with  other  pub- 
lishing houses.  In  addition  to  the  above,  the 
buildings  and  equipments  were  all  free  of  debt, 
and  there  was  always  money  in  hand  to  purchase 
supplies  at  the  lowest  market  price.  Did  ever 
another  publishing  house  possess  superior,  if 
equal,  advantages? 

303 


304  APPENDIX  III. 

Notwitlistauding  all  these  great  advantages, 
the  figures  show  that  a  very  small  sum  was  paid 
for  the  purposes  named  in  comparison  with  the 
amount  of  capital  invested.  The  profit  and  loss 
account,  the  items  of  which  I  give  in  detail  at 
the  end  of  this  statement,  shows  that  during 
the  ten  years,  from  1859  to  1868,  inclusive,  a 
total  of  1220,531.64  was  paid  for  all  Church  pur- 
poses. This  is  an  average  of  |22,053.16  per  year. 
The  ledger  shows  the  average  amount  of  capital 
to  have  been  |658,658.83.  Thus,  the  amount 
paid  for  Church  purposes — expenses  of  Bishops, 
dividends  to  Annual  Conferences,  etc.,  etc.,  was 
only  three  and  a  half  per  cent  on  the  capital 
invested.  But  it  may  be  asked,  was  not  the 
capital  largely  increased  during  these  ten  years? 
According  to  the  ledger,  the  increase  was  |14,- 
923.49,  which  was  an  average  of  |4,091.49  per 
year.  That  would  be  three-fifths  of  one  per  cent, 
added  to  the  capital.  This  added  to  the  above 
three  and  a  half  per  cent,  shows  the  entire  pro- 
fits in  those  years  to  have  been  four  and  one 
tenth  per  cent. 

But  this  is  not  all — ^in  addition  to  the  facts 
thus  stated,  an  examination  shows  that  the  capi- 
tal stock  on  the  ledger  was  made  to  strangely 
fluctuate  from  year  to  year,  rising  and  falling, 
losing  and  gaining,  to  suit  peculiar  and  unex- 
plained emergencies.  In  some  years,  the  exhib- 
its, as  already  shown,  reported  an  increase  of 
the  capital  and  the  ledger  showed  a  loss.  In 
January,  1861,  the  exhibit  to  the  Conferences 


APPENDIX  III.  305 

shows   130,903.08   added   to    the   capital.     The 
ledger  shows  that  there  was  nothing  added. 

The  profit  and  loss  account  ought  to  and  I 
suppose  does  give  all  the  payments  for  Church 
purposes  ordered  by  the  General  Conference  in 
the  ten  years  specified.  In  the  following,  I  give 
every  item  found  in  that  account  that  could 
apply  to  those  j)urposes: 

1859— General  Conference  Appropr's , .      $361.40 

Salaries  of  Bishops 6,056.19 

$6,417.59 

1860— Salaries  of  Bisliops 1,020.61 

General  Conference  Appropr's. .    3,191.70 

4,212.31 

1861— Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)   175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)   175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)  175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)   175.00 

Salaries  of  Bishops 9,935.25 

General  Conference  Appropr's..  4,404.72 

Salaries  of  Bishops  (again) 5,346.67 

General  Conference  Appropr's. .  1,333.34 

21,719.98 

1862— Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)  175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)  175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)  175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)   175.00 

General  Conference  Appropr's. .  2,054.00 
Salaries  of  Bishops 9,801.15 

12,555.15 


306  APPENDIX  in. 

1863— Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)   175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bisliop 

Heading) 175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bisliop 

Hedding)   175.00 

Dividends  to  Conferences 19,600.00 

Salaries  of  Bishops 12,311.56 

General  Conference  Appropr's.'.     2,254.93 

34,691.49 

1864— Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)  175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding)  175.00 

Lucy  Hedding  (widow  of  Bishop 

Hedding) 58.00 

Dividends  to  Conferences 20,400.00 

Delegate  Account 2,564.98 

Salaries  of  Bishops 11,173.65 

General  Conference  Appropr's. .     2,287.66 

Wives  of  Bishops  (widows) 1,100.00 

37,934.29 

1865— Dividends  to  Conferences 400.00 

General  Conference  Appropr's. .     2,602.23 

Salaries  of  Bishops 21,765.58 

Wives  of  Bishops  (widows)  ....        100.00 

24,867.81 

1866— General  Conference  Appropr's. .     2,068.43 
Salaries  of  Bishops 25,375.69 

27,444.12 

1867— Salaries  of  Bishops 20,379.58 

General  Conference  Appropr's..     2,333.10 
Daily  Advocate  95.79 

22,808.47 

1868— Bishops'  Traveling  Expenses 1,007.02 

General  Conference  Appropr's . .     5,000.00 

Salaries  of  Bishops 17,800.00 

General  Conference  Expenses  . .     4,073.41 

27,880.43 


Total  appropriations  for  10  years.  ..$220,531.64 
Average  per  year  paid  by  the  Concern  for 

all  church  purposes $22,053.16 


APPENDIX  in.  307 

The  foregoing  tables  show  the  amounts  re- 
ceived by  the  Church  from  the  Book  Concern, 
in  the  years  specified,  which  amounts,  judging 
by  the  last  twenty  years,  ought  to  have  been 
manifold  greater. 


if  ^3 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A    000  731  323    2 


